评最高人民法院指导案例50号:兼论生育权保护

Comments on the Supreme Court's Guidance Case Number 50——On the Protection of Reproductive Rights

指导案例的功能定位在于实现司法裁判的规范性与统一性,因此在裁判要旨的表述中应当保证论证思路的逻辑严谨性和规则解释的规范性。在指导案例50号的裁判要旨中,审理法院通过《民法通则》第57条民事法律关系解除规则来论证夫妻一致同意进行人工授精行为的法律效力,并界定与之相关的父母子女关系以及人工授精子女的法律地位,忽略了该条款普遍适用于男女双方的平等性特征,在法律规则的解释上不够规范,导致相关判决的论证不够严谨,与指导案例的功能定位不符。对此的解决方案是,应在承认生育行为中存在多种权益相互冲突这一基本事实的基础上,将相关纠纷交由审理法院,由其在个案裁判中充分考虑个案的具体情形并适用利益衡量规则确定何者应予优先保护,而非在此领域通过指导案例强行设置统一标准进而影响具体人在法律上应受保护之利益的充分救济。

Guidance case aims to achieve normative and unity in judicial judgment, so the rigor of demonstration ideas and normative of rule interpretation should be ensured. In the Case No. 50, the trial court argues the legal effect of artificial insemination with unanimous agree and also defines the associated parentage as well as the legal status of artificial insemination children according to the rescission of civil legal relations in ＂Civil Law＂ Article 57, but ignoring that it applies to both men and women, which contradicts the functional feature of a guidance case. The solution here is to acknowledge the fact that there are conflicting interests in reproductive behavior and then leave the dispute to the trial court. The latter will take full account of the specific case and decide which side could be protected firstly by balancing the interests.