REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/5379
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorBagan-Kurluta, Katarzyna-
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-30T08:08:17Z-
dc.date.available2017-03-30T08:08:17Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationMiscellanea Historico-Iuridica T. 15, Z. 1, 2016, s. 259-271pl
dc.identifier.issn1732-9132-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/5379-
dc.description.abstractSurrogacy is a tool to fulfil anyone’s need and yearning for a child. Next to adoption, it provides the only additional way to be a parent, opposite to adoption – it makes an individual capable of having a genetically related child. However, since the beginning of application of methods of artificial procreation and surrogacy itself in the 70s, 80s of the twentieth century, the need for regulation of surrogacy, the legality of the contract is still a source of controversies in courtrooms as well as in scientific discourse. Unfortunately, usually the consequence of a contract, even regarded as invalid, is childbirth. The discussion about surrogacy is therefore not only scientific in its nature – it refers to a living human being and his legal and family status. A few years ago I wrote about surrogacy in the US, in order to show the complexity of the problem in a country where there is a multiplicity of regulations – from its prohibition, through the lack of references in the law, to a clear, pronounced acceptance of contracts and surrogacy itself. Today, I am coming back to the issue in order to make one of the most controversial American cases the background for reflections on the realities of today’s Polish law.pl
dc.language.isoplpl
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstokupl
dc.subjectsurrogacypl
dc.subjectcontract of surrogacypl
dc.subjectsurrogate motherpl
dc.subjectintended parentpl
dc.subjectgenetic motherpl
dc.subjectbiological motherpl
dc.subjectfatherpl
dc.subjectsurogacjapl
dc.subjectmacierzyństwo zastępczepl
dc.subjectsurogatkapl
dc.subjectsocjologiczny rodzicpl
dc.subjectgenetyczna matkapl
dc.subjectbiologiczna matkapl
dc.subjectojciecpl
dc.titleCzyje dziecko, czyje? Kilka uwag o pochodzeniu dziecka na tle umów macierzyństwa zastępczegopl
dc.title.alternativeWhose child, whose? Some remarks on the origin of a child against surrogacy contractspl
dc.typeArticlepl
dc.identifier.doi10.15290/mhi.2016.15.01.15-
dc.description.Emailkbkurluta@wp.plpl
dc.description.AffiliationUniwersytet w Białymstokupl
dc.description.referencesIllinois Gestational Surrogacy Act, 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 47/1-75 (2006).pl
dc.description.referencesIllinois Parentage Act (750 ILCS 46/) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3638&ChapterID=59.pl
dc.description.referencesMinnesota Statutes https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/.pl
dc.description.referencesUstawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. – Kodeks cywilny (Dz. U. z 2016 r., poz. 380).pl
dc.description.referencesUstawa z dnia 25 czerwca 2015 r. o leczeniu niepłodności (Dz. U. z 2015 r., poz. 1087).pl
dc.description.referencesUstawa z dnia 25 lutego 1964 r. – Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy (Dz. U. z 2015 r., poz. 2082).pl
dc.description.referencesUstawa z dnia 28 listopada 2014 r. – Prawo o aktach stanu cywilnego (Dz. U. z 2014 r., poz. 1741).pl
dc.description.referencesDoe v. Doe, 710 A.2d 1297 (Conn. 1998).pl
dc.description.referencesHiggins v. Brunswick Corp., 395 N.E.2d 81, 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979).pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Application of Saxton, 309 N.W.2d 298, 301 (Minn. 1981).pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Baby M, 217 N.J. Super. 313 (1987), rev’d in part, 525 A.2d 1128, 1988 W L 6251, Slip Op A-39-87, decided Feb 3, 1988.pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Baby M, 217 N.J. Super. 313 (1987), rev’d in part, 525 A.2d 1128, 1988 W L 6251, Slip Op A-39-87, decided Feb 3, 1988.pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Marriage of Gorman, 671 N.E.2d 819, 825 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., Minnesota Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion, Justia US Law, http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/2007/opa070452-1211.html .pl
dc.description.referencesIn re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., No. A07-452, 2007 WL 4304448 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007), Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-PA-FA-05-278S, http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0712/opa070452-1211.htm.pl
dc.description.referencesInland Prods. Corp. v. Donovan, Inc. 249 Minn. 387, 390, 82 N.W.2d 691, 693 (1957).pl
dc.description.referencesMelena v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 847 N.E.2d 99, 109 (Ill. 2006).pl
dc.description.referencesMyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923),pl
dc.description.referencesPierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925),pl
dc.description.referencesPrince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).pl
dc.description.referencesSantosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982),pl
dc.description.referencesStoltze v. Stoltze, 66 N.E.2d 424, 428 (Ill. 1946).pl
dc.description.referencesTadros v. Kuzmak, 660 N.E.2d 162, 170 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).pl
dc.description.referencesWise v. Midtown Motors, Inc., 231 Minn. 46, 53, 42 N.W.2d 404, 408 (1950).pl
dc.description.referencesBagan-Kurluta K., About surrogacy agreements against background of American experiences, „Białostockie Studia Prawnicze” 2010, z. 8.pl
dc.description.referencesBychkov Green S., Interstate Intercourse: How Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Confl icts of Law, „Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society” 2009, nr 24.pl
dc.description.referencesGostin L., A Civil Liberties Analysis Of Surrogacy Arrangements, „Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy” 2000-2001, nr 17.pl
dc.description.referencesInstytucje prawa rodzinnego, red. J. M. Łukasiewicz, Warszawa 2014.pl
dc.description.referencesJędrejek G., Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Pokrewieństwo i powinowactwo. Komentarz do art. 61(7)-144(1), Lex 2014.pl
dc.description.referencesKrekora-Zając D., Prawo do poznania matki biologicznej według krajowego prawa rodzinnego, „Studia Prawnicze” 2014, z. 1.pl
dc.description.referencesPędziałek Kunert E., Rozważania o pomocy sądu rodzinnego i rodzinnego kuratora sądowego w zakresie ochrony dziecka i rodziny, „Rodzina i Prawo” 2016, nr 36.pl
dc.description.pages259-271pl
dc.description.volume15-
dc.description.issue1-
dc.description.firstpage259-
dc.description.lastpage271-
dc.identifier.citation2Miscellanea Historico-Iuridicapl
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Artykuły naukowe (WP)
Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica, 2016, tom XV, Z. 1

Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


Pozycja jest chroniona prawem autorskim (Copyright © Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone)