Surrogacy, Pregnancy and Maternity Rights: A Missed Opportunity for a More Coherent Regime of Parental Rights in the EU

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW European Law Review Pub Date : 2015-07-12 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2629812
E. C. D. Torella, P. Foubert
{"title":"Surrogacy, Pregnancy and Maternity Rights: A Missed Opportunity for a More Coherent Regime of Parental Rights in the EU","authors":"E. C. D. Torella, P. Foubert","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2629812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the years, the EU has been successful in creating a framework where pregnancy and maternity in the workplace are acknowledged and protected. Such a framework, however, fails to regulate situations such as surrogacy. The latter raises complex ethical and legal issues that have been addressed in very different ways at national level. Lack of a common position has meant that the rights that women have in to relation to surrogacy in the workplace have been ignored at EU level. This article maintains that one of the main difficulties in addressing it is the traditional understanding of who is perceived to be a mother. Women are de facto afforded rights because they are biological mothers and this excludes surrogacy. The debate has recently been highlighted by the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cases of C.D. v S.T. and Z v Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School. Interestingly, the two Advocates General reached different conclusions, one emphasising health and safety and the other the equality aspect of the debate: neither of these opinions offered a clear solution, yet both indicate possible ways forward. The Court ignored these suggestions and reached disappointing, albeit technically flawless and entirely predictable, decisions. Against this background, this article argues that the time is now ripe for a more coherent regime of parental rights in the EU where the focus should shift from the mere biological/gestational connotation of motherhood to emphasising the different sides of “being a mother”, and more generally “being a parent”, including a caring relationship between the parent(s) and the child. Accordingly, it concludes that the EU is in urgent need of a complete set of legal rules that looks beyond how families are constructed and, ultimately, values and promotes the role of care and, ultimately, the best interests of the child.","PeriodicalId":45752,"journal":{"name":"European Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2629812","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2629812","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Over the years, the EU has been successful in creating a framework where pregnancy and maternity in the workplace are acknowledged and protected. Such a framework, however, fails to regulate situations such as surrogacy. The latter raises complex ethical and legal issues that have been addressed in very different ways at national level. Lack of a common position has meant that the rights that women have in to relation to surrogacy in the workplace have been ignored at EU level. This article maintains that one of the main difficulties in addressing it is the traditional understanding of who is perceived to be a mother. Women are de facto afforded rights because they are biological mothers and this excludes surrogacy. The debate has recently been highlighted by the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cases of C.D. v S.T. and Z v Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School. Interestingly, the two Advocates General reached different conclusions, one emphasising health and safety and the other the equality aspect of the debate: neither of these opinions offered a clear solution, yet both indicate possible ways forward. The Court ignored these suggestions and reached disappointing, albeit technically flawless and entirely predictable, decisions. Against this background, this article argues that the time is now ripe for a more coherent regime of parental rights in the EU where the focus should shift from the mere biological/gestational connotation of motherhood to emphasising the different sides of “being a mother”, and more generally “being a parent”, including a caring relationship between the parent(s) and the child. Accordingly, it concludes that the EU is in urgent need of a complete set of legal rules that looks beyond how families are constructed and, ultimately, values and promotes the role of care and, ultimately, the best interests of the child.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
代孕,怀孕和母性权利:一个错失的机会,在欧盟更连贯的父母权利制度
多年来,欧盟成功地建立了一个框架,在这个框架中,工作场所的怀孕和分娩得到承认和保护。然而,这样的框架未能规范诸如代孕之类的情况。后者提出了复杂的伦理和法律问题,这些问题在国家一级以非常不同的方式加以解决。缺乏共同立场意味着妇女在工作场所与代孕有关的权利在欧盟一级被忽视。本文认为,解决这一问题的主要困难之一是对谁被视为母亲的传统理解。妇女事实上享有权利,因为她们是生母,这不包括代孕。欧洲联盟法院最近在C.D.诉S.T.和Z诉政府部门和一所社区学校管理委员会的案件中作出的判决突出了这场辩论。有趣的是,两位总倡导者得出了不同的结论,一位强调健康和安全,另一位强调辩论的平等方面:这两种观点都没有提供明确的解决方案,但都指出了可能的前进方向。法院无视这些建议,作出了令人失望的决定,尽管在技术上毫无瑕疵,而且完全可以预见。在此背景下,本文认为,在欧盟建立一个更连贯的父母权利制度的时机已经成熟,重点应该从单纯的母亲的生物学/妊娠内涵转移到强调“作为母亲”的不同方面,更普遍的是“作为父母”,包括父母和孩子之间的关爱关系。因此,报告的结论是,欧盟迫切需要一套完整的法律规则,这些规则不仅着眼于如何构建家庭,而且最终要重视和促进照顾的作用,并最终实现儿童的最大利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Playing by its own rules? A quantitative empirical analysis of justificatory reasoning in the registered trade mark case law of the European Court of Justice - dataset Beyond Food Safety: EU Food Information Standards as a Facilitator of Political Consumerism and International Law Enforcement Mechanism When Does a Communication to the Public Under EU Copyright Law Need to Be to a ‘New Public’? Regulatory Autonomy after EU Membership - Alignment, Divergence and the Discipline of Law Regulatory Autonomy after EU Membership: Alignment, Divergence and the Discipline of Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1