in reality

Two years ago when the Tohoku earthquake occurred, I watched a debate on whether we should offer high pay to the workers at the nuclear power plant -- so that we could recruit more workers.  I think most people were against the idea because it took advantage of poverty -- it was a crime against humanity.  "There would be no problem if one chose to risk his health of his own free will, but poor people with no work will reluctantly take the dangerous job for money.  It's unfair because they're practically forced to jeopardize their health.  They have no choice."

Of course they have no choice.  Not many want to be homeless and worthless.  I agree that no one should have to face the difficult choice of whether to die on the streets as a homeless man or to work near a broken down nuclear power plant with leaking radioactivity.  But in reality, under today's social system, there are people who live on the streets.  I assume that not a few of them would rather bear some radiation and work for the people and get some money to rebuild a new life.

And that's what the comment above is actually saying: having a risky job is better than dying in a ditch so "they have no choice" but to take the job.  By being paternalistic and insisting no one should be "forced" to earn money by risking their health, we're denying the chance of a homeless man to survive and to have a better life.

I think the same applies to the surrogate mother industry in India, and the prostitution industry prevailing all over the world, and many other jobs that requires workers to "use" their body.

And another related topic: buying and selling of organs.  It's prohibited.  But giving your organ to your loving child is considered a right thing to do.  Why?  What if you have ten children to support and the only way to earn enough money is to sell one of your kidneys?  I know most people are fooled and never get the money they were offered, but if you really could save your starving children by selling your organ, isn't that the same as giving your organ to your loving child?

The only reason I can think of to my own question - why regulations are necessary in certain areas - is that in most cases, earning money by risking your body/health is NOT the only choice.  When your eyes are clouded with poverty and desperateness, the option of using your body becomes a great temptation - it might seem like the only choice.  But there are other options as long as you can open your eyes and clear the mist in front of you.   I believe paternalistic regulation might be necessary in these kinds of situations to clear the mist.

We become sensitive when it comes to issues relating to our body but we actually take risks of all kind all the time; it's impossible to live without taking risks.  No one should have to sacrifice their body/health but if that is truly the only way to survive, I think no one is entitled to take that chance away.  After all, the principal condition to live a better life is to survive.