보조생식술과 부모 결정: 법적ㆍ철학적 함의
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Parenthood: between Law and Philosophy
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The latest developments of assisted reproductive technology give birth to the problems of epistemology as well as of regulation by law. The problems of regulation by law include the problem of permissibility and the problem of parenthood. In spite of the fact that much attention has been paid to each problem, we are still unequipped by clear legislation and competent judicial decisions. The problems of epistemology, on the other hand, has been addressed to by the bioethical philosophers and theorists, especially in many respects to the problem of human self-understanding including the issue of human enhancement. However, this paper shows the fact that the developments of assisted reproductive technology make the very concept of parenthood changed. It was neither the kind of “essentially contested concept”, nor the concept inviting serious disagreement in its usage among people. But we are somewhat lost without the secure concept of parenthood, although we still feel parenthood to be known evidently to ourselves. We cannot fully understand the ethical and legal implications of the assisted reproductive technology, unless we take into account the problem of conceptual change within the parenthood, which can be better seen by employing the concept/conception distinction.
Abstract
The latest developments of assisted reproductive technology give birth to the problems of epistemology as well as of regulation by law. The problems of regulation by law include the problem of permissibility and the problem of parenthood. In spite of the fact that much attention has been paid to each problem, we are still unequipped by clear legislation and competent judicial decisions. The problems of epistemology, on the other hand, has been addressed to by the bioethical philosophers and theorists, especially in many respects to the problem of human self-understanding including the issue of human enhancement. However, this paper shows the fact that the developments of assisted reproductive technology make the very concept of parenthood changed. It was neither the kind of “essentially contested concept”, nor the concept inviting serious disagreement in its usage among people. But we are somewhat lost without the secure concept of parenthood, although we still feel parenthood to be known evidently to ourselves. We cannot fully understand the ethical and legal implications of the assisted reproductive technology, unless we take into account the problem of conceptual change within the parenthood, which can be better seen by employing the concept/conception distinction.
참고문헌 (22)
- 권재문, "보조생식시술에 대한 표현부(表現父)의 동의의 의미와 효과", 동아법학, (43), pp.329~359 (2009), 법학연구소
- 김은애, "법적 부모 규정방식 변화의 필요성 : 보조생식술에 따른 모성ㆍ부성 개념 변화와 관련하여", 한국여성철학, 12, pp.117~143 (2009), 한국여성철학회
- 김혁기, "법과 법치 개념의 본질적 경합가능성에 대한 연구", 법철학연구, 15(2), pp.203~240 (2012), 한국법철학회
- 박은정, "생명 공학 시대의 법과 윤리" (2001), 이화여자대학교 출판부
- 송영민, "人工授精에 있어서 夫의 同意의 法的 性質", 가족법연구, 21(1), pp.187~212 (2007), 한국가족법학회
- 윤진수, "보조생식기술의 가족법적 쟁점에 대한 근래의 동향", 서울대학교 법학, 49(2), pp.66~96 (2008), 법학연구소
- 이영규, "대리모에 의한 출산자의 모자관계", 법과정책연구, 10(1), pp.83~108 (2010), 한국법정책학회
- 정광수, "인공생식과 친자관계에 관한 법적 문제", 안암법학, 통(25), pp.745~768 (2007), 안암법학회
- Dworkin, R, "Law’s Empire" (1986), Harvard University Press
- Endicott, Timothy A.O, "Herbert Hart and the Semantic Sting", Legal Theory, 4 (1998)
- Hart, H.L.A, "The Concept of Law" (1961), Oxford University Press
- Pence, Gregory E., "Classic Cases in Medical Ethics" (2004), McGraw-Hill
- Rawls, John, "A Theory of Justice" (2003), Harvard University Press
- 박동천, "사회과학의 빈곤" (2011), 모티브북
- "In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 02", 03 (1988), ~
- Johnson v. Calvert, "Johnson v. Calvert (1993) 5 Cal.4th 84 , 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 494; 851 P.2d 776", 4th 84, ~ (1993)
- 대법원, "대법원 2002. 6. 14. 선고 2001므1537", ~ (2002)
- 대법원, "대법원 2000. 8. 22. 선고 2000므292 판결", ~ (2000)
- 대법원, "대법원 1983. 7. 12. 선고 82므59 판결(전합)", ~ (1983)
- 서울가정법원, "서울가정법원 1995. 5. 30. 선고 94드61780 판결", ~ (1995)
- 서울가정법원, "서울가정법원 1994. 7. 15. 선고 93드89828 판결", ~ (1994)
- 대구지방법원, "대구지방법원 2007. 8. 23. 선고 2006드단22397 판결", ~ (2007)