DOI
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol3-iss7/S-pp274-284Keywords
surrogate motherhood , illegal pregnancy , commodification , tort law , biomaterial , alimony , harmAbstract
The paper examines the question of whether the law can fill a legal gap and provide a remedy for a surrogate mother if the future parents decide not to comply with the surrogacy agreement. Particular attention is paid to the situation in which a surrogate mother gives birth to a healthy child, and the question of whether a surrogate mother can claim compensation for the costs associated with raising this child. It also analyzes issues relating to reproductive autonomy and the commodification of a child, the recognition of the birth of a healthy child (and related child care costs) as an injury or loss, the determination of the amount of damage, the recognition of declared child care costs as a net economic loss, and implications of this categorization for forensic analysis. The paper substantiates that an analogy can be drawn with cases of «illegal pregnancy», since this foreign judicial practice shows that the birth of a healthy child, together with the costs incurred for raising this child, can be regarded as harm - with purely economic or indirect losses. The analysis carried out is not directly related to the Republic of Uzbekistan, due to the lack of legislative regulation and judicial practice in the country on the issue under consideration.
Downloads
References
Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v G (DF). [1997] 3 SCR925, 152 DLR (4th) 193 [cited to SCR].
Carsley, Stefanie, Tort's Response to Surrogate Motherhood: Providing Surrogates with a Remedy for Breached Agreements (2013). (2013) 46:1 UBC Law Review 1.
Окюлов О. (2020). Суд ва ҳуқуқни қўллаш амалиётида адолат, инсофлилик, оқилоналик тамойилларидан фойдаланишнинг методологик масалалари. Юрист ахборотномаси, 1(4), 55-64.
Караходжаева Д., Темирова Н., Юлдашева Ш., & Акаева Н. (2016). Семейное право. Учебное пособие.
Imomov N.F. (2018). The tasks of the Civil code: regulation of social relations or determination of rights. Review of law sciences, 2(1), 9.
Шарахметова, У. (2017). Issues of improving the regulation of circumstances preventing marriage in family law. Юридик фанлар аҳборотномаси, (2), 50-53.
Шарахметова У. (2020). Правовое регулирование брачных отношений. Iasaýı ýnıversıtetіnіń habarshysy.
Эгамбердиев Э.Х. (2017). Актуальные проблемы семейного права Республики Узбекистан. Хабаршысы, 119.
Бабажанова Д.И. (2022). Суррогатное материнство: договорно-правовое регулирование и защита интересов сторон. Государство и правовая система в условиях информационного общества, 9.
Babajanova D. (2021). Family-Legal Methods of Protecting the Rights of Children When Their Parents Involve Them In Begging In The Republic of Uzbekistan. The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology, 3(07), 14-18.
Динара Бабаджанова (2021). Основы гражданско-правового регулирования договоров об уплате алиментов. Общество и инновации, 2 (4), 36-39.
DOI: 10.47689/2181-1415-vol2-iss4-pp36-39.
Бабажанова Д.И. (2021). Право усыновленного ребенка на информацию о своих биологических родителях. In интеграция науки, общества, производства и промышленности: проблемы и перспективы (PP. 131–135).
Bevilacqua v Altenkirk, 2004 BCSC 945 at para 214, 242 DLR (4th) 338.
Stockford v Johnston Estate. 2008 NBQB 118,57 CCLT (3d) 135 [Stockford cited toNBQB].
Carsley, Stefanie, Regulating Reimbursements for Surrogate Mothers (2021). Alberta Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2021.
Stazi, Andrea, Human Genomics and Surrogate Motherhood: Legal Pluralism and the Circulation of Models (2018). Comparative Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018.
Sanda Rodgers, "A Mother's Loss Is the Price of Parenthood: The Failure ofTort Law to Recognize Birth as Compensable Reproductive Injury" (2009) 44 Sup Ct L Rev (2d) 161 at 168.
Y (M) v Boutros, 2002 ABQB 362, [2002] 6 WWR 463.
TG v Boutros, 2009 ABQB 651, [2010] 6 WWR 366.
Mummery v Olsson, 102 ACWS (3d) 815, [2001] OJ No 226 (QL) (Ont Sup Ct J) [cited to ACWS].
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, 1999 UKHL 50, [2000] 2AC 59 HL.
Kealey v Berezowski, 2001 ABQB 1032, [2002] 4WWR487 [cited to ABQB].
S(M) v Baked, 2001 ABQB 1032, [2002] 4WWR487 [cited to ABQB].
T. Minssen, Patenting human genes in Europe - and how it compares to the US and Australia, in D. Matthews, H. Zech (eds.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and the Life Sciences, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2017, p. 26 ff.
A. Stazi, Biotechnological Inventions and Patentability of Life. The US and European Experience, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2015.
SAA Patra, Human, Social, and Environmental Impacts of Human Genetic Engineering, in Journal of Biomedical Sciences, 2015, no. 4, p. 2 ff.
D.D. Trump, Synthetic biology regulation and governance: Lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore, in Health Policy, 2017, vol. 121, p. 1139 ff.
Hercules Management Ltd v Ernst & Young, [1997] 2 SCR 165, 146 DLR (4th) 577 [Hercules cited to SCR].
M. Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, Zed Books, London, 2014, 3rd edition, especially p. 151.
L. Del Savio, G. Cavaliere, The problem with commercial surrogacy. A reflection on reproduction, markets and labor, in BioLaw Journal, 2016, no. 2, p. 73 ff.
Downloads
343 109Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Динара Бабажанова
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
