DOI: https://doi.org/10.25040/medicallaw2019.02.026
Med. pravo., 2019; 2(24): 26-34
UDС: 347.633:2-457.5
DANCHENKO OLHA VIKTORIVNA
Attorney, CEO at “UkrLegis – the practice of family law” LLC, Head of the Section of Participants of Family Relationsin the Field of Healthcare Protection of the Family Law Committee of APO “Bar Association of Ukraine”, vice-president on legal issues of the Association “All-Ukrainian Foundation of Legal Organizations Providing Programs for Assisted Reproductive Technologies”
Surrogate motherhood v. adoption: comparative characteristics and current challenges
In Ukraine, modern Assisted Reproductive Technology came into operation
in 1987 and have reached since than high international standard. However,
the development of science and technology in this field is significantly
far ahead moral and legal adaptation of society to new progress, which especially concerns the institute of surrogate motherhood. In the present article the institution of surrogacy is analysed in comparison to long-standing norms of adoption institution, in particular with regard to the nature of both institutions, composition of relationships, criteria for participants, as well as risks and concerns for both methods of family accomplishment. Suggestions to improve legal regulation of ART methods are expressed. There is a progressing reason for enactment of unified law, regulating all legal and organizational aspects of ART, including norms on surrogacy method, which would serve to protection of interests of all parties involved and particularly best interests of the baby. In the view of many common traits between surrogacy and adoption, certain standards governing adoptions can be definitely implemented for surrogacy legal framework.
Key words: infertility, assisted reproductive technology, surrogacy, adoption.
Reference list:
1. Dakhno F. V. (2014) 1+1 = 3. Biotekhnolohia in vitro (odna z metodyk DRT). K.: Svit Uspikhu. 312 s.
2. Romovska Z. V. (2003) Simeinyi kodeks Ukrainy: [nauk.-prakt. komentar] / Z. V. Romovska. K: In Yure. 428 s.
3. Tatarintseva E. A.Usynovlenie i vspomogatelnyie tekhnologii: chto luchshe zashchishchaiet prava rebenka.E. A. Tatarintseva. Aktualnyie problemy rossijskogo prava. - 2015. - Vyp. 6. - S. 132-137
4. Tsukanova E. Yu. Iskusstvennyie semii: surrogatnoye meternistvo i usynovlenie v kontekste zashchity prav rebenka / E. Yu. Tsukanova, K. R. Khoborova. Nauchnyie vedomosti. - 2017. - 10(259). - S. 123-136
5. Seniuta I. Ya. (2018) Tsyvilno-pravove rehuliuvannia vidnosyn u sferi nadaniia medychnoi dopomohy: pytannia teorii i praktyky: monografia / I. Ya. Seniuta. - Lviv: Vyd-vo LOBO Medytsyna i pravo, - 640 s.
6. Antonov S. V. (2009) Pravove reguliuvannia zastosuvannia dopomizhnykh reproduktyvnykh tekhnologii i zakhyst prav yikh uchasnykiv v Ukraini ta za kordonom / S. V. Antonov. Upravlinnia zakladom okhorony zdorovia. 6. S. 11-19
7. Maidanyk R. (2012) Dohovir pro surohatne materynstvo za ukrainskym pravom: pytannia teoriita praktyky. R. Maidanyk // Pravo Ukrainy. 9. - S. 215-225/
8. Buletsa S. B. (2014) Istotni ta vypadkovi umovy dohovoru surohatnogo materynstva / S. B. Buletsa. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seria: Pravo. Vyp. 27(1). S. 129-134
9. Veres I. Ya. (2013) Problemy pravovoho reguliuvannia surohatnoho materynstva. I. Ya. Veres. Advokat. 3. S. 27-31
10. Golovachshuk A. P. (2013) Pravove rehuliuvannia dopomizhnykh reproduktyvnykh tekhnolohii. A. P. Golovachshuk. Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu. 2. - S. 189-191/
11. Duguet A.-M., Prudil L., Hrevtsova R. (2014) Surrogacy performed abroad: Consequences for French couples and evolution of the legal framework in some countries | Gestation pour autrui pratiquée à létranger: conséquences pour les couples français et évolution du cadre légal dans certains pays / Medecine et Droit.(125). - S. 46-51
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddro.2014.02.001
12. Pohoretska N.V. (2011) Mizhnarodne usynovlennia: problemni pytannia. N. V. Pogoretska. Forum prava. 3. S. 612-615.
