論人體分離物之法律地位－以財產利用為中心

A Study on the Legal Status of Human Body Parts -Focus on the Property Use

張瀞文(Ching-Wen Chang)

指導教授 ： 陳忠五

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700114

摘要

本文所稱人體分離物乃係指「任何自人體分離之部分，包含但不限於細胞、由細胞組成之組織、器官或含有細胞之體液等」。而人體分離物之利用於現今移植醫學以及生物科技研究等之場域中，皆佔有舉足輕重之地位，其所具備之研究價值更是不容小覷。
　　但是於法律層面，對於人體分離物之立法或學說討論卻相當有限，包含其最為前階段之基本定性問題，亦即其得否得作為民法上之權利客體－物，並成為所有權之標的，而得為使用、收益、處分？若答案為肯定，則其權利歸屬又應如何認定？再者，除了財產權上之問題外，人體分離物有無可能亦成為人格權所保障之對象？此等問題皆關乎其遭受侵害時，應以何種權利基礎為主張，有處理之必要。更進一步地，於肯定其兼具有財產權與人格權之雙重屬性後，其財產權之行使行為是否將因其與分離者人格上之緊密關聯性而受到來自公序良俗之限制？
　　是以，本文以上開問題為出發，由其於權利主客體二元論下之地位開始論述，先是肯定其應得作為一權利客體，並進一步透過比較法上之觀察以及我國學者對法律上之物的定義，得出其得作為一法律上之物，且得為權利主體所有之結論。此外，基於其與分離者間具有人格上之緊密關聯，故主張應將人格權之保障亦納入保護範圍，而採取人格權與財產權雙軌保障之方式。
　　而本論文更著重於人體分離物於財產利用中之相關問題，故在第四章開始聚焦於分離物所由之人基於契約自由與私法自治下所為之財產行為合法性問題。當中以公序良俗之概念作為人體分離物利用行為之界線，並在參考我國與日本對公序良俗概念之詮釋後，提出本文對於公序良俗觀念之看法，並將其類型化為「人體分離物之公序」，進一步提出具體之判斷因素，分別為人性尊嚴之維護、弱勢群體之保護、人民健康與衛生安全之保障以及科學研究與經濟發展之促進等四項。最後，再將此一標準用於人體分離物之融通行為以及對價行為合法性問題之檢驗，並得出部分人體分離物得具有對價可能性之結論。
　　而於肯認部分人體分離物對價行為合法性之可能後，又於第五章之部分針對研究檢體之對價給予機制的設計一事為進一步之討論，並強調國家以公權力介入人體分離物對價市場之必要性，且主張應有商業性研究利益分享權機制之創立以兼顧個案中之分配正義。
　　本文期望能透過此論文來釐清人體分離物於財產法以及人格權法上之地位，以利紛爭發生時，得對人體分離物之提供者有充足之保障，亦使當事人間之法律關係能明確具體。又藉著民法上公序良俗之概念來加以檢討現行法制下，一律禁止人體分離物所由之人以對價方式移轉分離物所有權之見解的合理性。以期能使得個案當中之分配正義在不違反公序良俗之前提下，被加以兼顧與落實。

關鍵字

人體分離物 ； 人體組織 ； 權利主客體二元論 ； 財產權與人格權 ； 公序良俗 ； 對價性 ； 研究利益分享權

並列摘要

In this essay, “human body parts” means “any material separated from human body, including human cells, tissues, organs or body fluid that contains human cells”.
Nowadays, ‘’human body parts’’ is quiet valuable, and Utilized in a variety of fields, especially the fields of transplantation and biological technology.
However, the legal issues about ‘’human body parts’’ re quite few. Take the most basic question for example. Ｗhether it is a property which can be regarded as an Object of rights? If the answer is positive, then, the following question is how to define its holder? Besides, whether it can also be an object of privacy? Those Questions above are all relevant to the statutes we should assert. Moreover, after confirming ‘’human body parts’’ should be protected by the property right and privacy, whether its property is consequently used has to be limited by its privacy character, public order and morals.
From the perspective of the legal positions, the author assured that ‘’human body parts’’ is an object of rights. Then, the author concluded that human body parts is in line with the definition of things according to the comparative law and professional essays, Besides, because of the tight relationship between the human body parts and its holder, the author claimed that the protection from privacy should be also emphasized.
Since this essay focuses mainly on the issue about Property use, we focus on the legality of the property use which is made under the holder’s free will from Chapter 4. In this chapter, we assumed the public orders and morals-as the limitation of the property use of’’ human body parts’’. After referencing the comments of public policy and morals by the professors from Taiwan and Japan, the author brined up some novel ideas about this concept, and categorized it as “public policy of human parts”.
Furthermore, posed the standard of judgment, which included “maintain of human dignity”, “protection of disadvantaged minority”, “security of health and safety”, and “promotion of scientific research and economic development”. In the end of the chapter, the author tried to manipulate this standard to examine the legality of the alienability and consideration in the transfer of human body parts, then, concluded that the consideration in a portion of human body parts’ transaction is Possible.
After we confirm the transactions of ‘’human body Parts’’ is legitimate. In Chapter 5, we devoted to building up an appropriate system to distribute the consideration, and emphasize that the public authority is indispensable for this system, also hold that it is necessary to establish a benefit-sharing system in the commercial research to balance the allocation of benefit.
We expect this essay may clarify the legal status of human body parts to provide sufficient protection, also to clarify the legal relationship between the parties. Additionally, by means of the concept of public policy, the author also reviewed the rationality of the opinion which exists in the current regulations that forbid any consideration in the transaction of human body parts. By doing so, the distributive justice in every individual case could be achieved on the premise that there is no violation of public policy.

並列關鍵字

human body parts ； human tissue ； subject of right and object of right ； property right and privacy ； consideration ； benefit-sharing system in the commercial research

參考文獻

王明城（1985）。〈傳宗接代的冰箱－精子銀行〉，《健康世界》，117期，頁36-39。

朱柏松（2013）。〈違反公序良俗法律行為的類型分析－兼評最高法院民國92年度台上字第2061號判決〉，《法令月刊》，64卷6期，頁1-27。

吳志正（2007）。〈論人工流產自主決定權之侵害與損害〉，《東吳法律學報》，19卷2期，頁1-26。

邱玟惠（2009）。〈屍體之法律性質：物權與人類尊嚴之二元結構初探〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，38卷4期，頁335-384。

林昀嫺（2012）。〈生醫材料移轉之契約、法律與倫理議題－以美國經驗為借鑒〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，81期，頁231-274。