I don't think anyone should be forced by circumstance to do any of these things; they should be a completely voluntary option for people who are kept safe from poverty through through a functioning welfare system.
Almost no one dies from diagnosed and treatable diseases, with a few exceptions in cases where treatment is extremely expensive and ineffective (e.g. treatment costs $1 million per year and increases life expectancy by 2 years).
We do still have drug addicts, homeless people, people with massive gambling debts, people with untreated psychological illnesses and prostitutes of many types.
I think it's an interesting philosophical discussion to which degree those who suffer the most on the lowest rungs of my society are victims (in the sense that society should have done more to help them). The vast majority are certainly _offered_ a large amount of help. Some seem unable or unwilling to accept help. Many do accept help, but keep making self-destructive decisions, and it is considered unethical to use force to stop them. Most receive help and live decent lives.
Interestingly, acts like surrogacy, prostitution and donating blood or plasma for money is still illegal here. Even though few better systems could be devised to ensure that on one is forced to take part in these against better judgement. "No one should be allowed to sell their body" is a mantra you'll hear a lot, but there hasn't been a very comprehensive discussion about the pros and cons of this.
E.g., I heard that Minnesota has some sort of routine in place for voluntary surrogacy, which costs the adoptive parents on the order of $100k, of which only ~25k goes to the birthing mother. (A large part of the cost is administration and health checkups/treatment/insurance).
It doesn't sound right to me that only 25% of the proceeds should go to the star of the show, so to speak. But this doesn't imply that it is impossible to do this ethically. Regulation that's well thought-out, as well as a sound, pre-existing social welfare net, is critical.