Journals / Tıp Hukuku Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 8

(SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD IN TERMS OF TURKISH CRIMINAL LAW)

CEZA HUKUKU AÇISINDAN TAŞIYICI ANNELİK

Pages
291–341
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Especially, when the new born can not be delivered to his genetic or legal mother for various reasons this might include a few serious risks.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Turkey, artificial insemination is only permitted to couples when they are officially married.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It might be interpreted as a trade ban when the law forbids to homosexual or unmarried couples to bring up a child by the use of surrogate mother's egg or by taking both egg and sperm from someone else, performing insemination to the 3rd party and then eventually separating a child from it's birth mother by the demand of the 3rd party instead of making that couple adopt a child.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Especially, when the new born can not be delivered to his genetic or legal mother for various reasons this might include a few serious risks.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In Turkey, artificial insemination is only permitted to couples when they are officially married. Surrogacy, however, has been banned by the law and is illegal as in most European countries. Despite the fact that nowadays quite a large number of couples has difficulties to have children and as a result sacrifice a lot. As an idea it would seem logical to allow surrogacy. Surrogacy could be permitted under certain conditions on order to prevent child abuse and protect child's interests. Naturally, surrogacy might seem contrary to human dignity in a sense that a woman would be used as a birth mechanism without consideration of the child's best interests speculating the mother's honor. It might be interpreted as a trade ban when the law forbids to homosexual or unmarried couples to bring up a child by the use of surrogate mother's egg or by taking both egg and sperm from someone else, performing insemination to the 3rd party and then eventually separating a child from it's birth mother by the demand of the 3rd party instead of making that couple adopt a child. Legally married mother or the 3rd party mother who is registering a child as her own in Turkey or abroad usually would have to apply to the surrogate motherhood institutions where her application might be considered in the light of various offences. According to TCL. art. 231/1 it is a crime to change the paternity. An individual who has done so or conspire against the law must be punished with an imprisonment from 1 to 3 years. The document forgery has been stated as a crime as well (TCL art.204). Furthermore, as stated in TCL art. 206 - (1) any individual who misrepresents in presence of an official officer or registers false statements in an official document will be fined or imprisoned from 3 months to 2 years. Although, this regulation may be violated. The offender can be prosecuted in Turkey even when such a crime has been committed abroad. In that case, TCL art. 11, 12 and 19 will be considered. Tube Baby Provision art. 24/3 prohibit any sort of advertising. However, this provision has never been used in daily life before. Actually, surrogacy should not be considered contrary to the law as it carries a very important meaning for the future. Especially, when the new born can not be delivered to his genetic or legal mother for various reasons this might include a few serious risks.

Özet

Türkiye açısından sun’i döllenme yalnızca evli çiftlerde mümkün- dür. Taşıyıcı annelik ise, Türkiye’de ve çoğu Avrupa ülkelerinde yasak- lanmıştır. Oysa, Birçok çiftin çocuğu olmuyor ve insanlar çocuk sahibi olmak için çok şeyi feda etmektedirler. İlke olarak taşıyıcı anneliğe izin verilmelidir. Bunun için, suiistimalleri önlemek ve çocuğun yararını ko- rumak amacıyla bazı koşullar getirilebilir. Taşıyıcı anneliğin insan onuruna aykırı olduğu, kadını yalnızca doğum makinesi haline getirdiği, çocuğun yararının dikkate alınmadığı, taşıyıcı annenin şerefinin korunmadığı argümanları birer spekülasyondan ibarettir. Ticaret yasağı veya çocuğun yetişmesi açısından evli olmayan çiftler ve homoseksüel çiftlere iznin verilmesinin yasaklanması, taşıyıcı annenin yumurtasının kullanılmasına rağmen çocuğun üçüncü kişilere verilmesinin engellenmesi veya bir çiftin evlat edinmek yerine hem yu- murta hem de spermi başkalarından alıp üçüncü bir kadını taşıyıcı anne olarak ısmarlamaları engellenebilir. Kiralık annelik kurumuna Türkiye’de veya yurtdışında başvurulur ve bu sanki hukuken evli annenin veya nüfusuna kayıt yapılan annenin çocuğu gibi kaydedilirse, olasılıklara göre değişik suçlar işlenebilir. Soybağını değiştirme suçu TCK. m. 231/1’de düzenlenmiştir. ‘Bir çocuğun soybağını değiştiren veya gizleyen kişi, bir yıldan üç yıla kadar hapis cezası ile cezalandırılır’. Bu suç işlenebilir. Ayrıca evrakta sahtecilik (TCK m. 204 vd) suçu işlenebilir. Yine resmi memura yalan beyan TCK. m. ‘206- (1) Bir resmi bel- geyi düzenlemek yetkisine sahip olan kamu görevlisine yalan beyanda bulunan kişi, üç aydan iki yıla kadar hapis veya adlî para cezası ile ce- zalandırılır.’ Düzenlemesi de ihlal edilebilir. Bu suçlar yurtdışında işlenirse, Türkiye’de ilgili kişiler hakkında dava açılabilir. Bu durumda TCK. m. 11 ve 12 ve 19’un dikkate alınması gerekir. Tüp Bebek Yönetmeliği diye adlandırılan Yönetmeliğin 24/3. maddesi bu Yönetmeliğe aykırı her tür reklamı yasaklamaktadır. Ancak bu madde günlük yaşamda hiç uygulanmamaktadır. Kiralık annelik gerçekte çağdaş hukuka aykırı sayılmaması gere- ken önemli bir ihtiyaçtır. Özellikle doğan çocuğun çeşitli nedenlerle son- radan sahiplenilmemesi veya hukuki annenin genetik anneye ya da sipa- riş veren anneye çocuğu vermemesi ciddi risklerden bir kaçıdır. Bu tür riskleri önleyici veya azaltıcı hukuki önlemler alınmak koşuluyla, kiralık annelik kurumuna izin verilmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜNVER, Y. (2015). (SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD IN TERMS OF TURKISH CRIMINAL LAW). Tıp Hukuku Dergisi, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 8, 291–341. https://ajindex.com/articles/361498

References (8)

  1. AKKER, van den O., ‘The importance of a genetic link in mothers commissioning a surrogate baby in the UK’, Human Reprocution, 15 (8), 2000: 1849-1855
  2. ANDERSON, E. (1993)
  3. Values in Ethics and Economics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. AJAM K., ‘Wombs for rent: State to act’ (August 26, 2006), available at http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/wombs-for-rent-state- to- act1.291108#.UNSRAW_eQd4 ). AZ: XII ZB 463/13- http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/bgh- leihmutter-urteil-101.html (Beschluss des Bundesgerichtshofs Leihmutterschaft durch die Hintertür Stand: 19.12.2014 - Saat: 00.53). Baby2Mom, ‘Every Thing You Need to Know About Surrogacy in South Africa’, http://www.proudparenting.com/node/15956. BLACKBURN-STARZA A., ‘South African court sets out guidelines for surrogacy arrangements’ (14 November 2011), http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_111585.asp.
  4. BORISOVA T.E., Surrogate Motherhood in Russian Federation: Problems of Theory and Practice. Moscow, 2012 (Rusça). BLYTH E. (1995) Not a primrose path: commissioning parents experiences of surrogacy arrangements in Britain. J. Infant Reprod. Psychol., 13, 185–196.
  5. BRAZIER, M., Campbell, A. and S. Golombok (1998) Surrogacy Review for Health Ministers of Current Arrangements for Payments and Regulation (Cm. 4068: HMSO: London) BRINSDEN, P.R., Appleton, T.C., Murray, E. et al. (2000) ‘Treatment by in vitro fertilisation with surrogacy: experience of one British centre’. Br. Med. J., 320, 924-928.
  6. CHLIAOUTAKIS, J.E., ‘A relationship between traditionally motivated patterns and gamete donation and surrogacy in urban areas of Greece’, Human Reproduction, 17 (8), 2002:2187-2191.
  7. CHLIAOUTAKIS, J.E., Koukouli, S., Papadaki, M., ‘Using attitudinal indicators to explain the public’s intention to have recourse to gamete donation and surrogacy’, Human Reproduction, 17 (11), 2002: 2995-3002. CHRISTE A., ‘South Africa shows a way to ensure more predictability in surrogacy arrangements’ (9 January, 2012), http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_116639.asp.
  8. CİN, Onursal. Hekimlerin Embriyo Nakillerinde Cezai Sorumlu- luğu., II. Sağlık Hukuku Kurultayı (7-8 Kasım 2008-Ankara)., Ankara 2009, sh: 153. Commentary to the Family Code of the Russian Federation (ed.) I.M. Kuznetsova. Moscow, 2000, sh: 183-186 (Rusça). CRAWSHAW M, Blyth E, van den Akker O. (2013) The changing profile of surrogacy in the UK – Implications for national and international policy and practice. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, DOI:10.1080/09649069.2012.7504