Lupton M L
School of Law, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, S. Africa.
Med Law. 1998;17(1):93-111.
The techniques of artificial reproduction have until fairly recently been geared to overcoming male sterility by means of AID and IPSI and female sterility by way of GIFT, VISPER and DIPI. The above techniques have concentrated on achieving conception either within or without the uterus. Gestation has always been completed in utero and the therapy was reserved for married couples. The above circumstances only required limited legal regulation and its effect on the family unit was minimal because the child was mostly conceived from the gametes of its parents New technologies which are looming on the horizon, however, threaten to change the concept of parent and family radically. I refer to the imminent perfection of the artificial uterus and the cloning of human cells. If these technologies are sanctioned, a child would be conceived from the cells of one parent only and will not be gestated within the mother's womb. How will society and the law react to these technologies? Will they regulate them or proscribe them? I will argue in favour of the former rather than the latter.
直到最近,人工生殖技术一直致力于通过人工授精(AID)和宫腔内配子移植(IPSI)克服男性不育,以及通过配子输卵管内移植(GIFT)、输卵管内胚泡移植(VISPER)和经阴道输卵内配子移植(DIPI)克服女性不育。上述技术专注于在子宫内或子宫外实现受孕。妊娠始终在子宫内完成,且该疗法仅适用于已婚夫妇。上述情况仅需要有限的法律监管,并且其对家庭单元的影响微乎其微,因为孩子大多是由其父母的配子孕育而成。然而,即将出现的新技术有可能从根本上改变父母和家庭的概念。我指的是人工子宫即将完善以及人类细胞克隆技术。如果这些技术得到认可,孩子将仅由一方父母的细胞孕育而成,且不会在母亲子宫内孕育。社会和法律将如何应对这些技术?它们会对其进行监管还是予以禁止?我将主张支持前者而非后者。