To what extent is a market for human organs in developing countries morally legitimate?

And of course it needs to be improved.
Another problem is the low availability of organ and tissue transplantation assistance, as Such medical centers are far from being found in all subjects of the Russian Federation. Their absence not only does not allow many Russian citizens to get on the waiting list, but also does not make it possible to remove organs, for example, from victims of car accidents, which, according to statistics, are more than 16,000 people a year (data for 2019).
Summing up, we note:
- transplantology is a sphere of life that cannot be abandoned anymore; therefore, it is necessary to develop and implement humanistic principles on the basis of which it will be regulated;
- the reasons that contribute to illegal transplantology include: low living standards, which may make individuals think about selling their organs; inadequate government funding for transplant programs; transplant deficiency and the spread of “transplant tourism”; a limited number of medical transplant centers and the desire of people at any cost to make the operation faster; the presence of a large number of people at risk of illegal organ harvesting;
- to eliminate the shortcomings it is necessary: to amend the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for punishment for the illegal acquisition, storage and transportation of organs; amend the Law “On transplantation of human organs and tissues” by replacing the presumption of consent to the presumption of disagreement with organ removal; prohibit the removal of organs from convicts and persons without a fixed place of residence; Develop the latest 3D bio-technology.
We also note that Russia is gradually undergoing an evolution in the field of transplantology. In recent years, a lot has been done to develop donation and transplantation of organs and tissues, many normative legal acts have been created, partial funding has been assigned to the state apparatus, material and technical facilities have been equipped, and much more.
Conclusion

Many religions prohibit damage to the body of a deceased person. From a secular point of view, the death of a person does not interrupt the effectiveness of his will in relation to what belongs to him. The expression of this will may be a written statement of it (testament) or oral expression of will.
During organ transplantation from corpses, moral and ethical problems arise associated with both the organ harvesting procedure and the fair distribution of scarce transplant resources between potential recipients.
The approach based on informed consent is based on the individual’s fundamental right to self-determination and autonomy. A person should be able to manage his own life and his body, including, within reasonable limits, even after death. At the same time, informed consent does not contradict the public interest in obtaining organs and tissues for transplants.
The specificity of the implementation of the public interest in this case consists in the voluntary delegation by individuals of certain rights to dispose of their own bodies after death to society or, more precisely, to certain structures authorized to represent this interest. Informed consent is a more democratic mechanism than a routine fence, in which doctors, as it were, appropriate the right to dispose of the body of the deceased without his permission.
At the same time, the approach based on the informed consent of the donor (or his relatives) significantly complicates the procurement of organs and tissues for transplantation, and gives doctors a very difficult psychological obligation to contact the relatives of the deceased in a difficult time for them to lose a loved one. Many doctors find this immoral.
It should be noted, however, that in world medical practice a certain experience has been accumulated in communicating on this topic with the families of the deceased. In some American states, for example, the law obliges physicians in the indicated cases to contact the relatives of the deceased with a proposal to remove organs or tissues for transplantation. Thus, the moral and psychological burden associated with the discussion of this complex topic with the relatives of the deceased is to some extent removed from the doctors. The legal norm in this case acts as a kind of "backup": it is one thing to speak these words on one’s behalf and quite another on behalf of the Law.
The successful implementation of the mechanism of informed consent assumes, firstly, that the population is fairly well informed about the concept of brain death and the social utility of transplants. Secondly, the need for a high level of public trust in medical professionals who are responsible for making a diagnosis of brain death. As a matter of fact, such conditions must be observed both with a routine fence and with the presumption of consent, however, with an approach requiring the informed consent of the donor, these factors decisively determine the very possibility of obtaining donor organs and tissues for transplantation. Today in Russia, proposals are being made for a legislative transition to an informed consent model. However, it should be noted that without a huge amount of explanatory work among the population, such a change in the law will entail an almost complete stop of organ and tissue transplants.
Reference List

Campbell A., Gillette G., Jones G. Medical Ethics: A Training Manual; trans. from English / Ed. Yu.M. Lopukhina, B.G. Yudina. - 2nd ed., Rev. - M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2010.- S. 183.
Healy K. Last Best Gifts: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs. The University of Chicago Press, London and Chicago, 2006, p.48.
Ponkin I.V., Eremyan V.V., Mikhaleva N.A., Bogatyrev A.G., Kuznetsov M.N., Ponkina A.A. On some shortcomings of the Federal Law “On the Basics of Protecting the Health of Citizens in the Russian Federation” No. 323-f3 dated November 21, 2011 // Moral imperatives in law. - 2011. - No. 3. - p. 4-38.

Healy K. Last Best Gifts: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs. The University of Chicago Press, London and Chicago, 2006, p.48.
Ponkin I.V., Eremyan V.V., Mikhaleva N.A., Bogatyrev A.G., Kuznetsov M.N., Ponkina A.A. On some shortcomings of the Federal Law “On the Basics of Protecting the Health of Citizens in the Russian Federation” No. 323-f3 dated November 21, 2011 // Moral imperatives in law. - 2011. - No. 3. - p. 4-38.
Campbell A., Gillette G., Jones G. Medical Ethics: A Training Manual; trans. from English / Ed. Yu.M. Lopukhina, B.G. Yudina. - 2nd ed., Rev. - M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2010.- S. 183.












2



4