Taşıyıcı Gebelik ve İnsan Hakları İlişkisindeki Güncel Soru ve Sorunlar: Global Bir Çerçeve

Abstract

İnsan hakları düşüncesi ve insan hakları hukukuyla ele alınacak olduğunda taşıyıcı gebelik, bu yönteme erişimi olan, bu yöntemi sunan, bu yöntemden faydalanan ve bu yöntem sonucunda dünyaya gelen kişiler adına uyandırdığı etik sorular ve doğurduğu pratik sorunlar bakımından problemli bir konumda yer almaktadır. Bu çalışmada, taşıyıcı gebeliğin farklı boyutları hesaba katılarak, dünya genelindeki seyrinin ve konuya ilişkin yasal düzenlemelerin konu edinilmesinin ardından, taşıyıcı gebelik ve insan hakları tartışmalarında gelinen son noktayı ortaya koyan güncel bir çerçeve çizilmektedir. Çalışma, taşıyıcı gebelik uygulamasının farklı tarafları olan kadınlar, ebeveyn adayları ve çocuklar açısından konu olabilecek insan hakları soru ve başlıklarını ortaya koymakta ve böylelikle konunun insan hakları bakımından kaçınılmaz olarak ortaya çıkan çok boyutlu doğasını konu edinmektedir. Bu bakımdan çalışma, taşıyıcı gebelik pratiğini etik olarak doğrulamayı ya da yanlışlamayı hedeflemenin ötesinde, konuya ilişkin problem arz eden farklı noktalara, insan hakları argümanlarıyla yaklaşırken seçilebilecek olan yolların bir ön-izlemesini sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Geride bıraktığımız yıllarda taşıyıcı gebelik konusunun belirli sayıda Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararına da konu olabilmiş olması gerçeğini hesaba katarak çalışma, bunlar arasından, taşıyıcı gebelik konusundan doğan sorunları ihtiva etmek bakımından görece komplike unsurlar barındırıyor olması nedeniyle, güncel tarihli olan bir kararı, eleştirel bir süzgeçten ele almaktadır.

Keywords

• Taşıyıcı Annelik
• Taşıyıcı Gebelik
• İnsan Hakları
• Özel ve Aile Hayatına Saygı Hakkı
• Üreme Hakları
• Kadın Hakları
• Çocuk Hakları

Current Questions and Issues in the Relationship between Surrogacy and Human Rights: A Global Framework

Abstract

When considered from the perspective of human rights idea and law, surrogacy stands in a highly problematic position in terms of the ethical questions it arouses and the practical problems it creates for the people who access, offer, benefit this method and the people who are born as a result of it. This study, after analysing the course of surrogacy worldwide with its different dimensions and the legal regulations on the subject, draws an up-to-date framework that reveals the current point reached in the relationship between surrogacy and human rights. The study addresses the human rights questions and topics that may be of concern for the different parties to this practice, namely women, intended parents and children, and thus reveals the inevitably multidimensional nature of the issue in terms of human rights. In this regard, the study does not seek to validate or invalidate surrogacy from an ethical standpoint, but instead aims to present an overview of how human rights arguments can be applied to tackle different problematic aspects of the subject. Considering the fact that the issue of surrogacy has been the subject of a number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the recent years, the study critically examines a relatively recent judgment, as it contains relatively complicated elements in terms of the problems arising from the issue of surrogacy.

Keywords

• Surrogate Motherhood
• Surrogate Pregnancy
• Human Rights
• Right to Private Life and Family
• Reproductive Rights
• Women‟s Rights
• Children‟s Rights

References

1. ADELINE, Allen, “Surrogacy and Limitations to Freedom of Contract: Toward Being More Fully Human”, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2018, C. 41, S. 3, s. 754-806.
2. ALLEN, Anita L., “Surrogacy, Slavery, and the Ownership of Life”, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1990, C. 13, s. 139-149.
3. AĞAOĞLU Cahit, “Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Sınıraşan Taşıyıcı Annelik ile Taşıyıcı Anneden Doğan Çocukların Yasal Anne-Babalığının Kazanılma Sorunu”, MHB, 2020, C. 40, S. 1, s. 437-480.
4. AYDIN, Melike Belkıs, “Yapay Döllenme Tekniklerinin Soybağı Hukuku ve Kişilik Hakkı Bakımından Sonuçları”, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, YÖK Tez, 2013.
5. A Preliminary Report on the Issues From International Surrogacy Arrangements, Preliminary Document No 10, 2012, Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (çevrimiçi) https://assets.hcch.net/docs/d4ff8ecd-f747-46da-86c3-61074e9b17fe.pdf, E.T.: 01.06.2024.
6. BANDELLI, Daniela, “Feminism and Gestational Surrogacy Theoretical Reconsiderations in the Name of the Child and the Woman”, Italian Sociological Review, 2019, C. 9, S. 3, s. 345-361.
7. BESSON, Samantha, “Enforcing The Child’s Right To Know Her Origins: Contrasting Approaches Under The Convention On The Rights Of The Child And The European Convention On Human Rights”, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 2007, C. 21, s. 137–159.
8. BRACKEN, Lydia, “Cross Border Surrogacy Before the European Court of Human Rights, Analysis of Valdis Fjölnisdóttir”, European Journal of Health Law, 2022, C. 29, s. 194-216.

9. BREMS, Eva, “Birthing New Human Rights, Reflections around a Hypothetical Human Right of Access to Gestational Surrogacy”, The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights, Cambridge Uni. Press, Ed. ARNAULD Andreas/ DECKEN Kerstin/ SUSI Mart, 2020, s. 326-334.
10. CHOUDRY, Cyra Akila, “Transnational Commercial Surrogacy: Contracts, Conflicts, and the Prospects of International Legal Regulation”, Oxford Handbook Topics in Law, Oxford Uni. Press, 2016.
11. CORRADI, Consuelo, “Motherhood and the Contradictions of Feminism: Appraising Claims Towards Emancipation in the Perspective of Surrogacy”, Current Sociology, 2021, C. 69, S. 2, s. 158-175.
12. Council of Europe, DH-BIO/INF (2016) 4 Addendum (çevrimiçi) https://rm.coe.int/inf-2016-4-addendum-update-june-2021-e/1680a3229f, E.T.15.08.2024.
13. DANIELOWSKI, Lauren, Reproduction as Work: Addressing a Gap in Current Economic Rights Discourses, Health and Human Rights Journal, 2023, C. 25, S. 2, s. 22-42.
14. DAVAKI, Konstantina, “Surrogacy Arrangements in Austerity Greece: Policy Considerations in a Permissive Regime, Babies for Sale: Transnational Surrogacy”, Human Rights and the Politics of Reproduction Ed. Miranda DAVIES, Zed Books, 2017, s. 142-159.
15. EKŞİ, Nuray, “Mahkeme Kararlarında Sınıraşan Taşıyıcı Anneliğe İlişkin Hukuki Sorunlar”, MHB, 2016, C. 36, S. 2, s. 1-51.
16. ELFERS, Isa, “Alienation, Commodification, and Commercialization: A Feminist Critique of Commercial Surrogacy Agreements Through the Lens of Labor Exploitation and U.S. Organ Donation Law”, Hastings Journal on Gender and the Law, Y. 2022, C. 33, S. 2, s. 151-186.
17. ERBAŞ Rahime, ERKAYIRAN Didem, CANGİL Sabah Mina. "Karşılaştırmalı Hukuktaki Örnekleriyle Türk Ceza Hukuku Açısından Taşıyıcı Annelik." İstanbul Tıp Hukuku Kitabı , (Ed. Demirel/Erbaş) Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2024.
18. ERGAS, Yasmine, “Babies Without Borders: Human Rights, Human Dignity, and the Regulation of International Commercial Surrogacy”, Emory International Law Review, 2013, C. 27, S.1, s. 117-188.
19. Eski Ahit, Yaratılış (16), (çevrimiçi) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016&version=NIV, E.T.: 01.06.2024.
20. FIRESTONE, Shulamith , The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, William and Morrow Company, 1970.
21. KHVOROSTYANOV Natalia., YESHUA-KATZ, Daphna, “Bad, Pathetic and Greedy Women: Expressions of Surrogate Motherhood Stigma in a Russian Online Forum”, Sex Roles, Y. 2020, c. 83, s. 474-484.
22. FLORES, Claudia, “Accounting for the Selfish State: Human Rights, Reproductive Equality, and Global Regulation of Gestational Surrogacy," Chicago Journal of International Law, 2023, C. 23, S. 2, s. 391-450.
23. FORMAN, L. Deborah, “Abortion Clauses in Surrogacy Contracts: Insights from a Case Study”, Family Law Quarterly, Y. 2015, C. 49, S. 1, s. 29-53.
24. GOLOMBOK, Susan, “Love and Truth: What Really Matters for Children Born Through Third-Party Assisted Reproduction”, Child Development Perspectives, 2021, C.15, S. 2, s. 103-109.
25. GONZALES, Noelia Igareda, “Legal and Ethical Issues in Cross-Border Gestational Surrogacy”, Fertility and Sterility, 2020, C. 113, S. 5., s. 916-919.
26. GÖLCÜKLÜ Feyyaz, “Milletlerarası Taşıyıcı Anneliğe İlişkin Kararların Tanınması ve Tenfizi”, GÜHFD, 2021, C.0, S. 1, s. 835-865.
27. GURTİN, Zeynep B., “Banning reproductive travel: Turkey’s ART legislation and third-party assisted reproduction”, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2011, C. 23, s. 555–564.
28. HARDERS, Ann-Cathrin, “2 Roman Patchwork Families: Surrogate Parenting, Socialization, and the Shaping of Tradition”, Children, Memory, and Family Identity in Roman Culture , (ed.) DASEN, Véronique / SPATH, Thomas, Oxford, 2010, s. 49-72.
29. Hammurabi Yasaları (çevrimiçi) https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp, E.T. 01.06.2024.
30. HORSEY, Kirsty, “The Future of Surrogacy: A Review of Current Global Trends and National Landscapes”, RBMO, 2024, C. 48, S. 5, s. 5-11.
31. İLTAŞ, Yiğit, “Taşıyıcı Annelikte Küretaj Hakkı”, BUHFD, 2023, C. 18, S. 215, s. 995-1045.
32. JACOBSON, Heather, The Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies, Rutgers University Press, 2016.
33. JOHNSON, Lily, “Commercial Surrogacy Is the Sale of Children? An Argument That Commercial Surrogacy Does Not Violate International Treaties”, Wash. Int’l L.J, 2019, C. 28, S. 3, s. 701-726.
34. Kazablanka Deklarasyonu (çevrimiçi) https://declaration-surrogacy-casablanca.org/, E.T. : 01.06.2024.
35. KIRKBEŞOĞLU Nagehan, Soybağı Alanında Biyoetik ve Hukuk Sorunları, İstanbul, Vedat Kitapçılık, 2006
36. KORNEGAY, R. Jo, “Is Commercial Surrogacy Baby- selling?”, J. APPLIED PHIL., 1990, C. 7, S. 1, s. 45-50.
37. MALKOÇ, ŞENSÖZ Ebru, “Uluslararası Taşıyıcı Annelik Sözleşmesinden Dopan İhtilaflarda Uygulanacak Hukuk”, MHB, Y. 2015, C. 35, S. 2, s. 13-49.
38. METİN, Sevtap, “Yörüngesinden Çıkan Tabiat: Etik, Sosyal, Psikolojik ve Hukuki Görünümleriyle Taşıyıcı Annelik”, Sağlık Hukuku Makaleleri II, İstanbul Barosu Yayınları, 2012, s. 7-55.
39. MOHAPATRA, Seema, Stateless Babies & Adoption Scams: A Bioethical Analysis of International Commercial Surrogacy, BERKELEY J. INT'L L., 2012, C. 30, S. 2., s. 412-450.
40. MULLIGAN, Andrea, “Protecting Identity In Collaborative Assisted Reproduction: The Right To Know One’s Gestational Surrogate”, International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family, 2020, C. 34, S. 1. s. 20–42.
41. NAHIGIAN, Vanessa, “Procreative Autonomy in Gestational Surrogacy Contracts”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Y. 2019, C. 53, S. 1, s. 235-262.
42. O’CALLAGAN, Elaine, “Surrogacy Reform and Its Impact on The Child’s Right to Birth Registration”, Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 2021 C. 13, s. 46-50.
43. O’CALLAGAN, Elaine, “Surrogate Born Children’s Access to Information About Their Origins”, International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family, Y. 2021, C. 00, s. 1-19.
44. PANDE, Amrita, Wombs in Labor: Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India, Columbia University Press, 2014.
45. PASCOE, John, Sleepwalking Through The Minefield: Legal and Ethical Issues in Surrogacy, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 2018, C. 30, s. 455-483.
46. ROSEMAN, Mindy Jane, The Fruits of Someone Else’s Labour: Gestational Surrogacy and Rights in the Twenty-First Century, The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights, Cambridge Uni. Press, Ed. Andreas ARNAULD/ Kerstin DECKEN/ Mart, SUSI, 2020.
47. ROSENBERG, Meryl B, “Critical Legal Considerations for All Parties to Surrogacy Arrangements”, Fam. Adv., Y. 2011, C. 34, s. 23-27.
48. RUDDICK, Sarah, Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace, Beacon Press, 1989.
49. RUDRAPPA, Sharmila, “Reproducing Dystopia: The Politics of Transnational Surrogacy in India”, 2002–2015, CRITICAL SOC., 2017, C. 44. s. 1-15.
50. SABATELLO, Maya, “Who's got parental rights? The Intersection Between Infertility, Reproductive Technologies, and Disability Rights Law”, Journal of Health and Biomedical Law, 2010, C. 6, S. 2, s. 227-260.
51. SAKIMURA, Catherine, “Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (1993)”, Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten (ed. Mutcherson, Kimberly M) Cambridge University Press, 2020.
52. SATZ, Debra, Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets, Oxford University Press, 2010.
53. SENGUPTA, Ananya, Bigoted Nationalism Enters Womb, Telegraph India, 2016.
54. SHI, Lei, “Surrogacy in China”, Eastern and Western Perspectives on Surrogacy, Ed. Jens, SCHERPE / Claire Fenton GLYNN/ Terry, KAAN, Intersentia, 2019, s. 359-376.
55. SMOLIN, David M, “Surrogacy as the Sale of Children: Applying Lessons Learned from Adoption to the Regulation of the Surrogacy Industry's Global Marketing of Children”, PEPP. L. REV, 2016, C. 43, S. 2, s. 265-344.
56. TEMAN Elly, “Surrogacy in Israel: State-Controlled Surrogacy as a Mechanism of Symbolic Control” Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice and Policy Issues, ed. E. Scott Sills, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
57. TOBIN, John, “To Prohibit Or Permit: What Is The (Human) Rights Response To The Practice of International Commercial Surrogacy?”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2014, C. 63, S. 2, s. 317-352.
58. UKELES, Laufer Pamela, “Mothering for Money: Regulating Commercial Intimacy”, Ind LJ, 2013, C. 88, s. 1223-1278.
59. WALKER Ruth, Van Zyl Liezl, “Surrogate Motherhood and Abortion for Fetal Abnormality” Bioethics, Y. 2015, C. 29, s. 529-535.
60. WILKINSON Stephen, “The Explotation Argument Against Commercial Surrogacy” Bioethics, Y. 2003, C. 17, S. 2, s. 169-187.
61. Women's Autonomy, Equality and Reproductive Health in International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends” CEDAW Position Paper (çevrimiçi) https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/WomensAutonomyEqualityReproductiveHealth.pdf , E.T.: 01.06.2024.
62. ZHAO, Yue, “Protection of rights and legal remedies for surrogate mothers in China” Humanity Soc Sci Commun, Y. 2023, C. 10, s. 823-835.