從英國判決看英國代孕及跨國商業代孕之合法性【寰宇醫事裁判】 試閱
Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Appellant) v XX (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 14
本案涉及原告因醫療過失導致子宮頸癌晚期，永久失去自然生育能力。原告要求賠償以支付代孕相關費用，包括英國合法的非商業代孕及在美國進行的商業代孕施行。被告承認醫療過失，但反對支付商業代孕費用，理由是違反英國公共政策。最高法院裁定支持原告，認為代孕相關費用屬於恢復性賠償，尤其是在國外法律健全的環境下進行的商業代孕不違反公共政策，並強調賠償需符合合理性和必要性。本案涉及原告因醫療過失導致子宮頸癌晚期，永久失去自然生育能力。原告要求賠償以支付代孕相關費用，包括英國合法的非商業代孕及在美國進行的商業代孕施行。被告承認醫療過失，但反對支付商業代孕費用，理由是違反英國公共政策。最高法院裁定支持原告，認為代孕相關費用屬於恢復性賠償，尤其是在國外法律健全的環境下進行的商業代孕不違反公共政策，並強調賠償需符合合理性和必要性。
This case concerns a claimant who, due to medical negligence, developed advanced cervical cancer and This case concerns a claimant who, due to medical negligence, developed advanced cervical cancer and permanently lost her natural fertility. She sought compensation to cover surrogacy-related expenses, including lawful non-commercial surrogacy in the UK and commercial surrogacy in the US. The defendant admitted negligence but opposed compensating for commercial surrogacy, citing a conflict with UK public policy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the claimant, finding surrogacy expenses to be restorative damages. It held that commercial surrogacy conducted under robust legal frameworks abroad does not violate public policy, emphasizing that compensation must meet standards of reasonableness and necessity.
093-102
