DOI
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol3-iss7/S-pp274-284Kalit so‘zlar
surrogat onalik , noqonuniy homiladorlik , biomaterial , aliment , zararAnnotasiya
Maqola huquqbuzarlik to‘g‘risidagi qonun huquqiy bo‘shliqni to‘ldirishi va agar kelajakdagi ota-onalar surrogatlik to‘g‘risidagi shartnomaga rioya qilmaslikka qaror qilsalar, surrogat ona uchun vositani taqdim etishi mumkinmi degan savol o‘rganiladi. Surrogat onaning sog‘lom farzand dunyoga keltirishi, surrogat ona ushbu bolani tarbiyalash bilan bog‘liq xarajatlarni qoplashni talab qilishi mumkinligi masalasiga alohida e’tibor qaratilmoqda. Shuningdek, u reproduktiv avtonomiya va bolaning tovarga aylanishi, sog‘lom bolaning tug‘ilishini (va tegishli bolani parvarish qilish xarajatlarini) shikastlanish yoki yo‘qotish deb tan olish, zarar miqdorini aniqlash, e’lon qilingan bolani tan olish bilan bog‘liq masalalar maqolada tahlil qilinadi. Sof iqtisodiy zarar sifatida parvarishlash xarajatlari va sud-tibbiyot tahlili uchun ushbu toifaga bo‘linishning oqibatlari xususidagi hujjat “noqonuniy homiladorlik” holatlari bilan o‘xshashlik hosil qilishi mumkinligini tasdiqlaydi, chunki ushbu xorijiy sud amaliyoti shuni ko‘rsatadiki, sog‘lom bolaning tug‘ilishi ushbu bolani tarbiyalash uchun sarflangan xarajatlar bilan birga, faqat iqtisodiy zarar sifatida baholanishi yoki bilvosita yo‘qotishlar sifatida qayd etilishi mumkin. O‘tkazilgan tahlillar O‘zbekiston Respublikasi bilan bevosita bog‘liq emas, chunki ko‘rib chiqilayotgan masala bo‘yicha respublikada qonunchilikni tartibga solish va sud amaliyoti mavjud emas.
Ko'chirildi
Bibliografik manbalar
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.
Yuklashlar
343 109Nashr qilingan
Qanday qilib iqtibos keltirish kerak
Nashr
Bo'lim
Litsenziya
Mualliflik huquqi (c) 2022 Динара Бабажанова
Ushbu ish Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Worldwide.
