代孕契約有背於公共秩序或善良風俗而無效？【醫事法學教室】 試閱
Whether Surrogacy Contracts are Invalid Because of Public Policy or Morals under the Civil Code in Taiwan
在各界對於是否開放代孕意見不一的情況下，人工生殖法於2007年制定至今，均未直接、正面地禁止代孕；然而，卻間接地「未開放代孕」，使醫療機構與醫師若實施代孕，可能受到行政處罰與懲戒處分。而若，不孕者委託孕母代孕，與孕母訂定代孕協議，法律行為是否有效？由於人工生殖法未有規定禁止代孕，因此代孕協議並未違反強制或禁止規定（民法第71條）；然而，有償的代孕契約卻可能因為鼓勵出租子宮並使生命商品化，從而受法院認定為有背於公共秩序或善良風俗而無效（民法第72條）。而醫師若違反人工生殖法中保護受術者健康之相關規定而施術者（例如違背人工生殖法第16條第6款，一次植入五個以上胚胎），造成受術者的傷害，則係違背保護他人之法律，受害者可依民法第184條第2項規定，請求損害賠償。
This article explores whether surrogacy contracts can be valid under the Civil Code in Taiwan. Because of strong disagreement over surrogacy in Taiwanese society, the Assisted Reproduction Act (ARA) does not clearly ban surrogacy but stipulates that the wife in the recipient couple must carry and give birth to the child herself. Such a provision indirectly limits surrogacy in Taiwan. Without an imperative or prohibitive provision regarding surrogacy, related contracts are not considered invalid under Article 71 of the Civil Code. However, surrogacy contracts with payments may be considered invalid by courts under Article 72 of the Civil Code because such agreements imply that lives can be purchased and that a woman’s uterus can be rented; these implications may violate public policy and morals. Additionally, if physicians violate an ARA provision that was enacted to protect patients and such behavior causes injury (e.g., the implantation of more than five embryos at a time, violates subparagraph 6, article 16 of the ARA, which was enacted for patient protection), they must compensate for injury in accordance with Paragraph 2, Article 184 of the Civil Code.
092-098
