民法典规定生命维护权为生命权内容的正确性——兼与否定民法典人格权编的主张商榷

The Correctness of the Civil Code’s Right to Life Protection as a Right to Life:And Disscussion Againstthe Arguments Against the Civil Code’s Personality Part

民法典出台前,学界出现了这样一种主张:以生命维护权包含自卫权,自卫权是美国公民对抗政府的权利,人格权编规定自卫权和行动自由为根据,要求民法典删除人格权编。这种主张否定了民法典人格权编规定生命权包括生命维护权,身体权包括行动自由权的正确性。民法典已经通过了立法机关审议,成为我国的法律,人格权编是其鲜明的立法特色,是民法典的最大亮点,其中就包括规定生命维护权和行动自由权。民法典保护自然人的生命安全,自然人有权维护自己的生命安全,有权维护自己的行动自由,这是保护人民的人格权所必须。在民法学术讨论和民法典立法过程中,学者都有提出不同意见的权利,但是应当遵守学术批评和表达自由的规范。

Prior to the introduction of the Civil Code,a claim emerged in the academic community that the Civil Code should remove the personality rights part on the basis that the right to life protection includes the right to self-defense,that the right to self-defense is a right of United States citizens against the government,and that the personality part provides for self-defense and freedom of movement.Such an assertion is irrational and denies the correctness of right to life protection as a right to life,and freedom of movement as right to body in personality rights part of the Civil Code.The Civil Code has been considered by the legislature and has become the law of our country,and the personality rights part is its distinctive legislative feature and the greatest highlight of the Civil Code,which includes provisions on the right to life and freedom of movement.The Civil Code protects the lives of natural persons,who have the right to defend their lives and their freedom of movement,which is necessary for the protection of people’s personality rights.Scholars have the right to dissent in the academic discussion of civil law and in the legislative process of the Civil Code,but the norms of academic criticism and freedom of expression should be observed and irrational approaches should not be taken.