營利性代孕居間機構之倫理可容許性及其注意義務

Abstract

由於代孕生殖技術涉及許多道德上爭議且對代孕當事人具潛在危險性，我國目前尚未將代孕生殖技術正式合法化，然而依據外國代孕經驗，過程中危險往往可借助完善之代孕居間制度而降低實現之可能。 但此居間機制在各國以不同方式運作之下，產生不同之服務機能及相應之義務範圍。以色列鑑於其特殊國情，係由政府行政機關負責大部分代孕居間之功能，然本文以為行政給付範圍應有其限度，且基於行政效率考量，此種由全體國民承擔代孕成本之模式可能不適合套用於我國。而英國代孕居間機構係由非營利組織擔任，然而其並不為代孕結果負任何責任，且近年來我國非營利組織對企業化漸採正面態度，故本文以為毋庸堅持必定以非營利模式經營代孕居間機構。最後本文肯定美國加州以市場化方式運作代孕居間機構應最能充分發揮其效能，且允許其收受合理報酬較能正當化其於過程中負起高度注意義務之要求，但仍須有相關配套措施以降低營利組織可能招致之道德上批評。 而代孕居間制度若適用我國民法居間規定可能發生扞格之處，例如於一般居間情形中，居間人並不須向委託人保證契約相對人之履約結果，但在代孕居間情形中，當事人之所以尋求代孕居間人之協助，即係希望減少代孕過程中糾紛發生可能。 為彌補此一立法上落差，本文參考美國Stiver案法院對代孕居間機構義務範圍之認定。該案多數意見表示代孕居間機構須為可預見之危險負責，但其範圍仍未明朗；而少數意見將其義務限於「提供適任醫師進行完善醫療程序」，故須證明施術醫師之行為違背一般標準，居間機構之過失責任始告成立。而本文以為代孕居間機構與醫師之義務應相互獨立，原告應證明者為「居間機構之行為違反一般標準」較為合理。然而多數意見未清楚解釋居間機構之注意標準為何，不啻課予居間機構無過失責任。本文以為目前我國代孕前景仍混沌不明，課予居間機構無過失責任將扼殺其成立經營動機，故使其有民法第一九一條之三推定過失責任規定適用即為以足。 又民法第一九一條之三屬危險活動與工作之概括條款，學界對其「危險」範圍界定亦多有爭議。本文參考美國Huddleston案法院對「可預見危險」之解釋及學者對此之批評，以為要求居間機構承擔過多之責任只會使其動輒得咎，影響社會活動之發展與進步，故應採「特別危險」而非「一般危險」之標準，較為妥當。

There is a policy and legislative vacuum in Taiwan on surrogacy resulted from the ethical concern of harm to gestational carriers, intended parents and the children, risk of which, however, could decrease by the service of surrogacy facilitators. The nature or scope of the duty required of surrogacy facilitators can vary according to the different styles of these organizations. Israel, the United Kingdom, and California represent three models for regulating surrogacy facilitators. In Israel, the statutory Committee for Approving Surrogate Motherhood Agreements provides safeguards for all parties involved in the procedure; nevertheless, all the Israeli taxpayers virtually share the cost of these services. The Surrogate Arrangement Act in Great Britain permits voluntary surrogacy organizations, which bear no responsibility for any damages, passing on their collective experience to surrogates and would-be parents; therefore the role of facilitating surrogacy arrangements should be left to groups of well-meaning amateurs. On the contrary, Californian commercial surrogacy agencies perform the transaction-cost-reducing functions and provide a wide range of services helpful to all parties. This thesis believes that an actively regulated permission, rather than a complete elimination, of such commercial agencies would seem to be the most appropriate policy for Taiwan. To clarify the contract duty of commercial surrogacy agencies, this thesis introduces the decisions of the U.S. Courts in Stiver v. Parker and Huddleston v. ICA. The court in Stiver judicially created a new special relationship with a corresponding affirmative duty of care between a surrogacy broker and the program beneficiaries. In Huddleston, the court found that the surrogacy business had an affirmative duty to protect the child from the foreseeable risks of the surrogacy process. And the scope of that duty extended to taking steps to protect against every “broadly definable class” of risks that are generally foreseeable in the circumstances. This thesis concludes it is more adequate to impose presumed negligence rather than strict liability on commercial surrogacy agencies, and to limit the scope of duty to the risk which is specifically foreseeable rather than generally foreseeable. Otherwise, commercial surrogacy agencies, who are instrumental in bringing this reproductive technique to infertile people desperately in want of children, may leave the business they have created.