代孕者、意向父母和专业人士对改善澳大利亚代孕途径的看法

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES International Journal of Law Policy and the Family Pub Date : 2024-07-05 DOI:10.1093/lawfam/ebae009
Ezra Kneebone, Karin Hammarberg, Kiri Beilby
{"title":"代孕者、意向父母和专业人士对改善澳大利亚代孕途径的看法","authors":"Ezra Kneebone, Karin Hammarberg, Kiri Beilby","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While altruistic surrogacy arrangements are permitted in Australia, commercial ones are not. Regardless of this, most intended parents undertake commercial arrangements by bypassing domestic laws and engaging with foreign surrogates. Considering the welfare risks and ethical concerns associated with international surrogacy, developing a more accessible model of surrogacy in Australia has been proposed as a harm minimization approach. This study aims to describe how Australians who have navigated or facilitated surrogacy believe access to arrangements could be improved. Australian surrogates, intended parents, parents through surrogacy, and surrogacy professionals were interviewed, and interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The themes identified were ‘improve public awareness’, ‘develop policies to guide healthcare practitioners’, ‘establish agencies’, and ‘reform the law’. ‘Reform the law’ had four sub-themes: ‘harmonise laws across the states and territories’; ‘grant intended parents legal parenthood at birth’; ‘legalise commercial surrogacy and gamete donation’; and ‘fair surrogate compensation’. Findings indicate that improving access to surrogacy in Australia will require an overhaul of the legislative environment relating to surrogacy and gamete donation, policies to guide healthcare practitioners, and public awareness campaigns.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia\",\"authors\":\"Ezra Kneebone, Karin Hammarberg, Kiri Beilby\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lawfam/ebae009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While altruistic surrogacy arrangements are permitted in Australia, commercial ones are not. Regardless of this, most intended parents undertake commercial arrangements by bypassing domestic laws and engaging with foreign surrogates. Considering the welfare risks and ethical concerns associated with international surrogacy, developing a more accessible model of surrogacy in Australia has been proposed as a harm minimization approach. This study aims to describe how Australians who have navigated or facilitated surrogacy believe access to arrangements could be improved. Australian surrogates, intended parents, parents through surrogacy, and surrogacy professionals were interviewed, and interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The themes identified were ‘improve public awareness’, ‘develop policies to guide healthcare practitioners’, ‘establish agencies’, and ‘reform the law’. ‘Reform the law’ had four sub-themes: ‘harmonise laws across the states and territories’; ‘grant intended parents legal parenthood at birth’; ‘legalise commercial surrogacy and gamete donation’; and ‘fair surrogate compensation’. Findings indicate that improving access to surrogacy in Australia will require an overhaul of the legislative environment relating to surrogacy and gamete donation, policies to guide healthcare practitioners, and public awareness campaigns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebae009\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebae009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚允许利他代孕安排,但不允许商业代孕安排。尽管如此,大多数意向父母还是绕过国内法律,与外国代孕者达成商业安排。考虑到与国际代孕相关的福利风险和伦理问题,有人建议在澳大利亚开发一种更容易获得的代孕模式,作为一种伤害最小化的方法。本研究旨在描述曾参与或促成代孕的澳大利亚人如何看待代孕安排的可及性。我们对澳大利亚代孕者、意向父母、代孕父母和代孕专业人员进行了访谈,并对访谈记录进行了专题分析。确定的主题包括 "提高公众意识"、"制定政策指导医疗从业人员"、"建立机构 "和 "改革法律"。法律改革 "有四个次主题:"协调各州和地区的法律";"给予有意父母出生时的合法父母身份";"商业代孕和配子捐赠合法化";以及 "公平的代孕补偿"。研究结果表明,要改善澳大利亚的代孕机会,就必须彻底改革与代孕和配子捐赠相关的立法环境,制定指导医疗从业人员的政策,并开展提高公众认识的活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia
While altruistic surrogacy arrangements are permitted in Australia, commercial ones are not. Regardless of this, most intended parents undertake commercial arrangements by bypassing domestic laws and engaging with foreign surrogates. Considering the welfare risks and ethical concerns associated with international surrogacy, developing a more accessible model of surrogacy in Australia has been proposed as a harm minimization approach. This study aims to describe how Australians who have navigated or facilitated surrogacy believe access to arrangements could be improved. Australian surrogates, intended parents, parents through surrogacy, and surrogacy professionals were interviewed, and interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The themes identified were ‘improve public awareness’, ‘develop policies to guide healthcare practitioners’, ‘establish agencies’, and ‘reform the law’. ‘Reform the law’ had four sub-themes: ‘harmonise laws across the states and territories’; ‘grant intended parents legal parenthood at birth’; ‘legalise commercial surrogacy and gamete donation’; and ‘fair surrogate compensation’. Findings indicate that improving access to surrogacy in Australia will require an overhaul of the legislative environment relating to surrogacy and gamete donation, policies to guide healthcare practitioners, and public awareness campaigns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.
期刊最新文献
Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’ The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court Individual realities and legal responsibilities: a study of non-resident parents who dispute child maintenance obligations in Swedish administrative courts, 2014–2019 Healthcare Decision Making for Children in Singapore: The Missing Chapter in Comparison with English 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