在人身伤害个案中安排代孕的费用补偿

Sirko Harder
{"title":"在人身伤害个案中安排代孕的费用补偿","authors":"Sirko Harder","doi":"10.53300/001c.24902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A woman who has been rendered infertile by a defendant’s wrong may wish to obtain damages for the cost of becoming a parent through a surrogacy arrangement. Such a claim, which has yet to be brought before an Australian court, would raise two partially overlapping issues under Australian law. First, the claim must satisfy the general requirement that a person who has suffered personal injury can only recover expenses that are necessary and reasonable. Secondly, the laws of the Australian jurisdictions except the Northern Territory regulate surrogacy arrangements and criminalise commercial surrogacy arrangements (where the surrogate mother is promised a fee in addition to the reimbursement of expenses). This regulation may impact upon the recoverability of the cost of a surrogacy arrangement through the concepts of coherence of the law and public policy. The most complex scenario, but also the most likely to arise in Australian personal injury litigation, is that of a plaintiff who lives in Australia and wishes to enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement in a foreign country in which this is lawful. This article investigates the legal issues that may arise if a claim for the cost of a surrogacy arrangement is brought before an Australian court.","PeriodicalId":33279,"journal":{"name":"Bond Law Review","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compensation for the Cost of a Surrogacy Arrangement in Personal Injury Cases\",\"authors\":\"Sirko Harder\",\"doi\":\"10.53300/001c.24902\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A woman who has been rendered infertile by a defendant’s wrong may wish to obtain damages for the cost of becoming a parent through a surrogacy arrangement. Such a claim, which has yet to be brought before an Australian court, would raise two partially overlapping issues under Australian law. First, the claim must satisfy the general requirement that a person who has suffered personal injury can only recover expenses that are necessary and reasonable. Secondly, the laws of the Australian jurisdictions except the Northern Territory regulate surrogacy arrangements and criminalise commercial surrogacy arrangements (where the surrogate mother is promised a fee in addition to the reimbursement of expenses). This regulation may impact upon the recoverability of the cost of a surrogacy arrangement through the concepts of coherence of the law and public policy. The most complex scenario, but also the most likely to arise in Australian personal injury litigation, is that of a plaintiff who lives in Australia and wishes to enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement in a foreign country in which this is lawful. This article investigates the legal issues that may arise if a claim for the cost of a surrogacy arrangement is brought before an Australian court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bond Law Review\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bond Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.24902\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.24902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于被告的错误而导致不孕的妇女可能希望获得损害赔偿,以补偿通过代孕安排成为父母的费用。根据澳大利亚法律,这样的索赔将引发两个部分重叠的问题,目前尚未提交澳大利亚法院审理。首先,索赔必须满足一般要求,即遭受人身伤害的人只能获得必要和合理的费用。其次,除北领地外,澳大利亚司法管辖区的法律对代孕安排进行了规范,并将商业代孕安排定为刑事犯罪(在这种情况下,除了报销费用外,还向代孕母亲承诺一笔费用)。通过法律和公共政策的一致性概念,这一规定可能会影响代孕安排成本的可恢复性。在澳大利亚的人身伤害诉讼中,最复杂但也是最可能出现的情况是,原告居住在澳大利亚,希望在合法的外国签订商业代孕协议。这篇文章调查了可能出现的法律问题,如果代孕安排的费用索赔被带到澳大利亚法院之前。
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
Compensation for the Cost of a Surrogacy Arrangement in Personal Injury Cases
A woman who has been rendered infertile by a defendant’s wrong may wish to obtain damages for the cost of becoming a parent through a surrogacy arrangement. Such a claim, which has yet to be brought before an Australian court, would raise two partially overlapping issues under Australian law. First, the claim must satisfy the general requirement that a person who has suffered personal injury can only recover expenses that are necessary and reasonable. Secondly, the laws of the Australian jurisdictions except the Northern Territory regulate surrogacy arrangements and criminalise commercial surrogacy arrangements (where the surrogate mother is promised a fee in addition to the reimbursement of expenses). This regulation may impact upon the recoverability of the cost of a surrogacy arrangement through the concepts of coherence of the law and public policy. The most complex scenario, but also the most likely to arise in Australian personal injury litigation, is that of a plaintiff who lives in Australia and wishes to enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement in a foreign country in which this is lawful. This article investigates the legal issues that may arise if a claim for the cost of a surrogacy arrangement is brought before an Australian court.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
‘Often Fails to Give Close Attention to Detail’: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Criminal Justice Offender Populations A Practitioner’s Perspective Concerning the Links between Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the Criminal Justice System Understanding the Nature of ADHD and the Vulnerability of Those with the Condition Who Fall Foul of the Criminal Justice System Corporate Purpose and the Misleading Shareholder vs Stakeholder Dichotomy Legal Considerations in Machine-Assisted Decision-Making: Planning and Building as a Case Study
×
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