An Award of Damages for Commercial Surrogacy Overseas?

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-01
Michelle de Souza
{"title":"An Award of Damages for Commercial Surrogacy Overseas?","authors":"Michelle de Souza","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines the United Kingdom Supreme Court decision in Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14. The case centred on whether damages could be awarded for the cost of a commercial surrogacy arrangement in California, following clinical negligence by the hospital that left the plaintiff unable to carry her own children. After examination of this case, the article outlines and compares the United Kingdom and Australian surrogacy laws. It then discusses how a similar case would be decided in Australia and argues that the result would be the same in some Australian States. It also discusses the concept of reproductive autonomy and the importance of this concept when considering cases involving the loss of fertility.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 1","pages":"166-178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the United Kingdom Supreme Court decision in Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14. The case centred on whether damages could be awarded for the cost of a commercial surrogacy arrangement in California, following clinical negligence by the hospital that left the plaintiff unable to carry her own children. After examination of this case, the article outlines and compares the United Kingdom and Australian surrogacy laws. It then discusses how a similar case would be decided in Australia and argues that the result would be the same in some Australian States. It also discusses the concept of reproductive autonomy and the importance of this concept when considering cases involving the loss of fertility.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
海外商业代孕的损害赔偿裁决?
本文探讨了英国最高法院对 Whittington 医院 NHS 信托公司诉 XX [2020] UKSC 14 一案的判决。该案的核心是,在加利福尼亚州,由于医院的临床疏忽导致原告无法怀上自己的孩子,是否可以对商业代孕安排的费用进行损害赔偿。在对该案进行研究后,文章概述并比较了英国和澳大利亚的代孕法律。然后,文章讨论了类似案件在澳大利亚的判决方式,并认为澳大利亚一些州的判决结果也会相同。文章还讨论了生育自主权的概念以及这一概念在审议涉及丧失生育能力的案件时的重要性。
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
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
Termination Laws in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand - Do They Align with Midwives' Scope of Practice? 'Truly, Madly, Deeply': Using Law to Compel Health and Lifestyle Influencers to Tell the Truth. Tasering Patients - A Bioethical Assessment of Taser Use Against Mental Health Inpatients in New Zealand. Voluntary Assisted Dying and Conscientious Objection: An Analysis from Victoria, Australia. Section 19(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 Prevents Prisoners Accessing Medicare: Fact or Fiction?
×
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