생명공학적 인공배아와 인체유래물의 민법상 지위

유지홍 경북대학교 대학원 2013 국내박사

The Legal Status of the Artificial Embryo and the Human Material through the Biotechnological Process in Civil Law* Yoo, Ji Hong Department of Law Graduate School, Kyungpook National University Daegu, Korea (Supervised by Professor Kang, Tae Seong) (Abstract) Biotechnology(BT) is the next generational core technology which makes 'Revolutionary Wealth' with Information Technology(IT). But it has been rapidly developed as 'a double-edged sword' which has the fatal hazard to violate human life and rights such as the cloning of humans. In this doctoral dissertation, the author examines the legal status of 'the unborn life' and 'the human material' in order to set up the proper direction of Biotechnology on a legal point of view. In Chapter 2, the author examines the development process of Biotechnology at the 5 essential part and surveys international discussions for the Biotechnology and the Bioethics Law. Especially, it must be the measure(barometer) which decide 'the actual profit for legal discussion' to examine 'the scientific development process'. 'The Gene' established the new scientific field of 'Biotechnology'. and 'the Human Genom Project(hereafter the HGP)' gave us the hope to treat incurable diseases from analyzing 'three billion genome sequence' of human. The juridical issues relating to gene are in two part. First, is 'cell or gene' the thing? or the part of the human body still? Second, is it 'the invention of a thing' or 'the invention of medical procedure' to identify 'human disease genes'? In Vitro Fertilization(hereafter IVF) has been developed since Louis Brown was born in 1978. On the juridical point of view, the view of the majority is opposed to IVF, which is because IVF has two bad influences. First, IVF destroys many fertilized eggs after 'super ovulation'. Second, IVF may lead to many crimes such as 'the cloning of human' or '(human-animal)interspecific fertilization' through the utilization of biotechnology. The cloning of life was completed technically through the birth of 'Dolly' of the cloned sheep developed from the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland in 1996. This cloned sheep caused the Bioethics Law legislated all around the world. The cloning of life has two major issues on a juridical point of view. First, the legal status of 'the embryo(the fertilized egg)' should be compared with the unborn fetus. Second, the legal status of 'human cell' become an issue, namely it should be discussed whether the cell separated from the body is 'a thing' or 'a part of the human body' still. 'Stem cell' is undifferentiated cell and composed mainly of 'Adult Stem cell', 'Totipotent Stem cell', 'Embryonic Stem cell', 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell'. On a juridical point of view, the development of 'Adult Stem cell' and 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell' enables 'Embryonic Stem cell' measured essentially in law regardless of 'actual necessity'. because the indispensability of 'Embryonic Stem cell' has disappeared. Dr. 'Woo-Suk Hwang' produced the cloned animal(the cloned cow, young-long) fifthly in the world, and extracted the stem cell from somatic cell cloning embryo(somatic cell cloning embryonic stem cell) firstly in the world. he produced a great achievement for korean biotechnology. The juridical issues relating to Dr. Woo-Suk Hwang are in two part. The first is the investigation(and reveal) of 'the truth'. The Hwang Affair should be revealed according to the court's decision for the sake of the development of korean biotechnology. The second is the change of research direction. 'Embryonic Stem cell' and 'the cloning of human' will not be permitted all around the world. Therefore research direction should be switched from 'Embryonic Stem cell' to 'Adult Stem cell' or 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell'. The bioethics laws are divided into two parts all over the world. In Germany and France, 'the humanity(the attribute as the subject of rights) of a embryo' is permitted. But in USA and England, 'the humanity of a embryo' is not permitted. The position of our nation seems likely to be similar to that of USA or England. The Korean Law on Bioethics and Biosafety(Law No. 7150, hereafter the Bioethics Law) should be examined in three part on the whole. First, 'the humanity of a embryo' should be reexamined out of consideration to development of 'Adult Stem cell' and 'induced Pluripotent Stem cell'. Second, In the creation of a 'somatic cell cloning embryo', the aim and period should be expressly limited obviously. Third, In the form of 'The National Bioethics Committee', the component proportion of members should be readjusted reasonably. In Chapter 3, the author examines the legal status of a 'artificial embryo' in Civil Law. The importance of this argument has been increased due to the necessity for 'the destroy of the cloned embryo' and 'the utilization of embryonic stem cell'. When Civil Law was legislated, the unborn life was only ‘fetus’ which was ‘in mother's body’ and generated ‘by sexual intercourse’. But biotechnology has developed rapidly since then. The methods of creating embryo(or fetus) are diversified ranging to 'sexual intercourse', 'In Vitro Fertilization', 'somatic cell cloning'. and The forms of existence range to 'Newborn', 'Fetus', 'Extreme prematurity', 'fertilized egg' confusing us to distinguish them. From a viewpoint of Civil Law, The view of scholars about the legal status of 'the fertilized egg in vitro' is generally divided into three types, 'the body tissue separated from body', 'the intermediate existence between a human and a thing', 'the exactly equal existence to fetus'. On closer examination, 'the Genetic Identity' and 'the Growth Potential' which are the essence of life is fully completed when fertilization. So it is reasonable that the legal status of 'the fertilized egg in vitro' is thoroughly equal to that of fetus. The author examines the validity of creating 'the fertilized egg in vitro'. The frozen embryos cause the problems of 'the violation of human life', 'the genetical engineering of human', 'the bad use for the criminal purpose', 'the birth of the cloned human'. And after birth, The frozen embryos must lead to many problems in 'domestic relations' and in 'inheritance'. Therefore 'the fertilization in vitro' and 'the storage of the frozen embryos' should be absolutely prohibited even though they can contribute to the treatment of incurable disease. The author examines the legal status of fetus in Civil Law. It is reasonable that the clauses of Civil Code for protection of fetus are interpreted as exceptional provisions in regard to 'the Article 3'. So It is resonable that the fetus acquires 'the Capacity for Enjoying Private Right' immediately in a womb when fetus state and lose that right when stillbirth. The author examines the theory of legislation. it is reasonable that the Article 3 will be revised as follows. 'the human is the subject of rights and obligations for survival from the fertilization.' In chapter 4, the author examines 'the legal status of human material separated through the biotechnological process. There are five kinds of theories from a viewpoint of Civil Law as follows. 'It is just a thing', 'Only gamete is not a thing', 'Organ is not a thing', 'It is not a thing if only there is the intention to inject it back into the body', 'It is just a part of human body in spite of separation from the body'. In this dissertation, the author concludes that 'human material' separated from the body is still a part of human body on the grounds of 'the several regulations over the world', 'the judicial precedents regarding this', 'the essence of scientific facts'. The first is 'the several regulations' over the world. According to 'French Civil Law the third clause of Article 6-1' and 'Helsinki Declaration the first clause', the human material is excluded from 'the Attribute of a Thing'. The second is 'the judicial precedents regarding this'. In ‘the Moore case’ and ‘the Cornelio case’, the U.S. courts judged that the human material is excluded from 'the Attribute of a Thing'. In Germany, it was judged that the stored sperm separated from body was still the part of human body if only there is the intention to inject it back into that body. The third is 'the essence of scientific facts'. Presently 'the somatic cell cloning of human embryo' has became a common technology all over the world. Through just one cell, the offerer of that cell can be cloned at any time. The author examines the infringement cases on the rights through using 'human material'. At present, it is anticipated that just one cell can infringe the essence of 'personal rights' such as 'the leaking of genetic information', 'the cloning of human'. So the human material should be admitted as 'the part of human body' and 'the object of personal rights'. The author examines 'the Donation' and 'the Processing' in Civil Law. First, 'the donation without compensation' which is expressed in a special act relating to human material is not equal to 'the Donation in Civil Law' but it is just provisions in public law. Second, 'the Processing in Civil Law' is examined. All sorts of cells can change from just 'one cell' to '(the cloned) human' in the essential respect if only that cell is processed with the egg. So 'the Processing in Civil Law' can not be applicable to the human material. The author examines the protection of private right in regard to human material. In Germany, just for the infringement for a human body, 'the Solatium' can be demanded in 'Slight Negligence'. So there are practical benefits obviously. In Korean Civil Law, the practical benefits are in the aspect of 'burden of proof'. In the infringement for a human body, the demand of 'the Solatium' is permitted fairly. But in the infringement for a thing, in order to demand 'the Solatium', the claimer should prove 'the occurrence of special mental damage' and 'the Negligence' If all the points about the human material are examined, it is reasonable that the legal status of human material in Civil Law is still 'a part of human body' even though it is separated from human body. In chapter 5, the author examines 'the protection method' for the research result of human material. Until now, the human material has been treated and protected similarly to 'the invention of chemical substances' in the patent practice. But the realistic situation has changed utterly because of the development of biotechnology. 'The three billion genome sequences of a human' are analyzed completely through 'HGP'. From now on, the gene function should have been confirmed through the analyzed genome sequence. So to speak, as if we search for 'a needle' in 'the heap of scrap metal', the researchers should search for the genes relating to incurable diseases. The author examines three major issues on a juridical point of view. The first is whether human material is a thing or a treatment methods of diseases. The second is how a treatment methods(medical procedure) can be protected. The third is 'the compulsory licensing'. First, the human material can not be treated as 'a thing' in Civil Law. So it is reasonable that the research result of gene(human material) should be treated as treatment method(medical procedure) in the patent practice because 'that research result' is applicable to the treatment of diseases. Second, 'the approval of patentability for medical procedure' can be determined by the policy(in other words, it is not an unchangeable law). 'the disapproval of patentability for medical procedure' is due to concern about the monopoly on treatment method. So if 'the monopoly on treatment method' can be resolved, the patentability for medical procedure can be approved. As a matter of fact, it is the issue for 'the securing of a license'. This issue can be resolved through the revision of law relating to this and also can be resolved through 'compulsory licensing' in current Patent Law without the revision of law. Third, the author examines 'the compulsory licensing' in order to secure the licenses. First of all, the author examines the situation of compulsory licensing for 'the patented medical drugs'. 'The compulsory licensing' mostly has not exercised in the world but just has been fully utilized for the purpose of 'the sword for show(treat)'. And through negotiations, it can be possible for 'the patented medical drugs' to be supplied inexpensively. This negotiations became the way for 'the Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health in 2001'. In the medical procedure, 'The securing of a license for the purpose of humanism' can be effectively ensured through 'the compulsory licensing'. especially, it is more reasonable that 'the medicine-related organizations' establish 'the integrated management system' for the patents of medical procedure(treatment method for diseases). There are some remarkable conclusions on juridical examination for Biotechnology. First, the juridical judgement should be made not from 'the actual necessity' but from 'the principle(theoretical) examination'. This conclusion has been founded through the fact that 'iPS cell' was developed in order to avoid 'the criticism in ethics' or 'the prohibition by law' for the embryonic stem cell. Second, biotechnology has developed 'the treatment of incurable diseases', 'the good health and long life'. But there is 'the (principle) line' which we should stop in front of by accepting the death as destiny. 'The destruction of human embryo' must be 'the line'. Third, Just one cell can enable the cloning of human. Therefore 'in examining the legal status of human materials', the scope of 'the Attribute of Humanity' should be expanded and that of 'the Attribute of a Thing' should be reduced. Fourth, the advanced technologies for 'treatment method(medical procedure)' should be patented as 'the invention of medical procedure(method)', so they should be accepted, released in public. If we graft the current information technology(IT) on these advanced biotechnology(BT), we can develop the world-class biotechnology in the Republic of Korea.

배아연구에 관한 법·윤리적 고찰

김향미 고려대학교 대학원 2009 국내박사

최근 생명공학기술은 눈부시게 발전해 왔으며, 그중에서 생식과 관련된 인공수태시술을 통해서 체외에서 착상전의 배아를 확인하고 다루게 됨에 따라 복잡한 문제를 야기하게 되었다. 즉 임신을 시도하고 남은 잔여배아문제, 배아의 이용 및 폐기 문제와 더불어 최근 체세포복제술 통해서 인간의 체세포복제제배아를 만들어서 이로부터 줄기세포를 추출하여 불치의 병에 대한 치료에 관한 연구 등 배아를 이용한 연구가 활발히 진행이 되고 있다. 체세포복제배아의 연구를 포함하는 배아의 연구는 인간복제에 대한 가능성으로 이어 질수 있다는 우려를 낳고 있으며 이로 인해 인류에게 커다란 위협을 주고 있는 실정이다. 배아의 연구와 관련되는 제반의 문제와 그의 해결책을 모색하기 위해서는 그에 앞서서 과연 배아는 도덕적으로, 법적으로 어떠한 지위를 점하고 있는지를 정하는 것이 필요하다. 논의를 통해서 착상전배아의 지위는 유일한 존재이며 인간으로의 잠재적인 발달가능성을 가진 존재이이지만 배아는 생명의 연속성과 잠재성을 가진 존재로서, 완전한 인간은 아니며, 발달과정 중에 있는 하나의 존재이다. 생존에 관련되는 부분에 있어서는 기본권적인 침범할 수 없는 권리를 가지는 존재로서 인정하여야 할 것이다. 배아를 생성하는 목적은 임신에 성공하기 위함이므로, 임신을 유도함으로써 생명에 대한 존중과 생명권보호를 위한 기회부여가 반드시 우선되어야 할 것이다. 배아의 생성 및 존재 이유에 대한 목적을 이루고 난 이후에 그의 이용에 대해서는 다음단계의 과정으로써 고려되어야 할 것이다. 현대 사회에서 생명과학은 빠르게 변화하고 있으며 세계 각국은 생명공학관련 연구 특히 줄기세포연구에 집중적으로 연구를 진행하고 있는 시점에 있다. 공리주의적인 사고로부터 출발해서 이르게 된 발전과 더불어서 이로부터의 혜택을 받는 것으로부터 배제된 사회구성원의 가치 또한 보호할 필요가 있다. 근본적으로 문제점들에 대해서는 인식을 하면서 우려되는 문제점의 발생을 최소한으로 하기 위해서는 사회 내에서 여러 계층의 구성원들의 의사소통의 장이 필요하며 이를 통해서 도출되는 합의가 필요하다. 실질적인 업무에 대한 관리를 하는 기구와는 별도로 합의체를 통해 사회내의 생명윤리와 관련하여 다양한 의견을 조정하고 윤리 및 안전에 관한 문제에 대하여 합의점을 찾고 이를 정책에 반영이 될 수 있는 기능을 수행하도록 한다. 또한 이러한 협의체를 통해 얻어지는 의견을 바탕으로 해서 만들어지는 법의 운용은 이를 철저히 관리･감독할 수 있는 관리체계 또는 구체적인 기구를 두어서 운영을 하는 것이 바람직할 것으로 생각된다. 생명과 관련되는 문제는 모든 관련분야의 학제간, 다학제적, 통합학문적 연구를 통해 함께 논의하고 해결 방법을 모색해야 할 분야이다. 배아는 하나의 생명으로서 태어날 권리를 비롯한 모든 권리가 지켜지는 것 등 배아나 하나의 인간의 생명을 지키는 것은 중요하고 가치가 있음은 당연하다. 그러나 하나의 인간의 생명의 차원을 넘어서 생명이라는 관점은 사회적, 인류적 생명으로 바라보아야 하며, 사회적 생명으로서 보호되어야 할 통합적인 생명관의 확립이 필요할 것이다 In the recent time, Biotechnology has progressed remarkably. It causes the marked improvement of human life style with the rapid changes of society. The remarkable progress of biotechnology directly connected with human birth, life and death contributes to a lot of benefits to people, medically and economically, and human well-being. But it happens occasionally the burden to society due to the risk or abuse of biotechnology, and there are many concerns that one life can be treated like the objectives used for another life or publics. So the need in argument for the regulation is raised. It is time to prepare the process for preventing the impairment of the dignity and the value of human. Embryos can be managed in vitro with Artificial Reproductive Technology(ART) among the field of biotechnology. It cause the many kinds of social problems. The remained embryos after attempting pregnancy is usually stored by cryopreservation. In the future, it can be attempted to be used for another pregnancy. After a definite period of time, if the embryo's parents do not want to be pregnant, it would be discarded. Many people naturally thought that the remained embryos destined to be discarded could be used at the researches. So there have been a lot of ethical debates to permit using the embryos to the researches. In Korea, the process of law was prepared for using the remaining embryos for the researches with the limited condition. Recently through human somatic cell transfer, somatic cell transfer embryos were made. The stem cell which is used to the research for incurable disease is extracted from the somatic cell transfer embryos. As being able to manage preimplantation embryos in vitro by the development of ART, the problem to decide to the period to be prevented from fetus which had been prevented by the previous law changes to the deliberate and complex problem. The problems are what is human life, when starts human life, and which the cloned embryos should be treated as human, or not. To find the solution to the problem of the researches using embryos, it is necessary to decide the position which the embryo has morally and legally. As the position of embryo, the degree and limitation for the prevention of embryo will be decided and should be prevented. The embryo is not a complete human being but a developing and potential human being. I think that the embryo is not a human being but must be regarded as a human being at the level of the right. The constitutional fundamental right to live of embryo must be kept. As the human being is prevented because of human itself, embryo must be prevented as the same reason. But the embryo has the limitation that the opportunity to be born depends on the other people. Because the purpose to make embryos is to achieve pregnancy, embryo must be given the prior opportunity to be born, and life dignity and the right to live must be prevented. First of all, after gaining for the purpose of pregnancy, the next step to use the embryos for researches could be considered if it would be accepted according to the result of comparison with many other's benefits in the society. The law and regulations must be prepared for protecting the embryo's opportunity to be born as the potential human being. The important problem of using the embryo for research is that the embryos must be destroyed before. This is ethical and legal problem. The global nations have proceeded actively the stem cell research, especially with embryonal stem cell including embryos from somatic cell transfer. It can not be prevented or opposed because of the many benefits for the economical growth and international competitiveness. With the development from the thinking of utilitarianism, it must be preserved and it should be discussed at the point of the value of the excluded social member's rights. The basic problem must be recognized and the occurrence of the concerning problem must be minimized. The law prepared for the regulation is not enough because of the rapid changes of biotechnology. For this, it should be necessary to prepare the field for the active communication among social members. It will be achieved possibly from the consensus by the communication. Actually the community in society need to be composed. It can be maintained and progressed by open mind and open space of many kinds of social members at the same level and conditions with the active communication. Besides this, it is necessary to prepare for the open discussion and debate with interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches. As a result, the research using embryos can be permitted minimally at a definite condition in the comparison of benefits among the society. But it must be controlled strictly by laws and regulations for the protection of embryo. The most important methods for keeping the constant and fare society including the embryo protection is the preparation for the community to achieve the consensus by the active communication with society members. And the practical regulating system needs to be established for strictly controlling and managing the ART program and the researches using embryos.

補助生殖에 관한 民法上의 問題點

맹광호 延世大學校 大學院 2005 국내박사

生殖醫學의 진보는 자연적인 생식방법으로는 子를 가질 수 없는 불임부부 등에게 희망을 성취시킬 수 있는 여러 가지 가능성을 실현해 왔다. 이에 따라서 체내인공수정이나 체외수정 그리고 대리모임신과 같은 補助生殖術은 이미 보편적인 불임치료의 수단으로 이용되고 있다. 그러나 보조생식술을 이용한 출산의 증가와 함께 많은 민사법적 문제들이 발생하게 되었지만, 보조생식으로 인한 子의 출산을 예견하지 못하고 제정된 민법을 비롯한 민사법 체계는 이를 규율할 수 있는 법규범으로서 기본적인 한계를 가지고 있다. 2005년부터 생명윤리및안전에관한법률’이 시행되었지만, 주로 생명윤리의 관점에서 생식세포의 매매금지나 배아의 보호를 위한 규제적 성격을 가지고 있을 뿐이어서 보조생식으로 인해 발생되는 법적 문제를 처리하는 기준으로는 미흡하다. 그러므로 보조생식으로 출생한 子의 친자법적 지위, 친자관계 결정 문제, 정자제공자의 법적 지위, 대리모계약의 유효성, 생식세포와 배아의 법적 성격 등에 대한 민사법적 문제점들은 현행 민법 등의 해석론이나 판례의 입장에 의해 규율될 수밖에 없다. 體內人工授精과 관련하여, 夫의 동의 없는 비배우자간 인공수정(AID)으로 출생한 子도 원칙적으로 모의 배우자인 夫의 친생자추정을 받는다고 해야 하고, 다만 이러한 子의 母와 그 배우자인 夫가 이미 이혼한 경우처럼 이미 보호할 가정의 평화가 존재하지 않는 경우에만 그 夫의 친생자추정이 미치지 않는다고 보아야 한다. 夫가 비배우자간 인공수정에 동의한 경우에, 인공수정자는 동의한 夫의 친생자추정을 받는다. 이 경우에 출생자와 모의 夫 사이에 자연적인 혈연관계가 없다는 것을 이유로 夫가 친생부인의 소를 제기하는 것은 신의칙 등에 반하는 것으로서 부정되어야 한다. 그리고 예외적으로 인공수정자에 대한 夫의 친자관계가 부정되고 정자제공자를 특정할 수 있는 경우에, 정자제공자가 任意認知를 하거나 인공수정자가 認知請求할 수 있는지의 문제가 발생하는데, 子와의 친자관계를 형성할 의사가 없었던 정자제공자가 법적인 친자관계를 인정받아 부양과 상속의무를 부담하는 것은 부당하므로고 이를 인정할 수는 없다고 본다. 體外受精에 관련하여, 체외수정의 유형 중에서 子의 출생을 의도하는 부부의 생식세포를 전혀 이용하지 않고, 모두 제공자의 난자나 정자만으로 체외수정하여 자를 출산하는 것은 입법적으로 금지해야 한다. 생식세포인 정자와 난자의 법적 성격에 대해서는, 인체으로부터 분리된 신체의 구성부분은 物件이라는 통설에 따라서 그 물건으로 인정하고 분리전의 귀속자가 그 소유권자라고 본다. 그러나 생명의 기초인 생식세포라는 특성상 인체로부터 분리된 정자나 난자에 대하여 일반적인 소유권의 내용이 그대로 인정될 수는 없다고 하겠다. 체외수정으로 생성된 배아의 법적 성격에 대하여는 배아가 인간으로 발현될 수 있는 가능성이 있는 존재라는 이유만으로, 배아에게 權利能力을 인정하는 명문의 규정이 없음에도 불구하고 보관중인 배아에게 비록 제한적이라도 권리능력을 인정할 수는 없다고 본다. 배아도 인체로부터 분리된 정자와 난자가 수정을 통해 결합된 것이고, 관리가능하고, 인체의 구성부분이 아니므로 이를 물건으로 보아 소유권의 객체가 된다고 해석해야 할 것이다. 따라서 원칙적으로 배아의 소유권은 배아를 구성하는 정자와 난자의 귀속권자인 체외수정을 시술받은 부부에게 있다고 본다. 다만 그 법적 성격을 물건으로 본다는 것은 배아가 動産과 동일한 고유의 성질이 있다는 의미가 아니라, 현행 민법상으로는 배아의 성격을 물건으로 취급할 수밖에 없다는 점에 의한 것이다. 그러나 이처럼 배아의 법적 성격을 물건으로 보아 소유권의 객체가 된다고 해석하는 경우에도, 자궁에 착상되면 세포분열, 성장, 分化를 통하여 인간 생명체로 발전될 수 있다는 그 잠재적 가능성을 고려하여 정자나 난자와 마찬가지로 動産에 대한 일반적인 所有權의 내용이 그대로 적용될 수는 없다고 본다. 대리모임신과 관련하여, 대리모계약의 효력을 인정하지 않는 견해의 주요 논거인 대리모계약이 민법 제103조의 반사회질서행위에 해당한다는 것은 ‘선량한 풍속’과 ‘사회질서’의 그 개념이 확정적인 것이 아닌 유동적인 개념이므로 그 효력을 부인할 수 있는 절대적인 근거는 아니다. 따라서 대리임신 ․ 출산에 대한 보상으로서 금전지급이 있는 代理母契約도 유효성을 인정하여 대리모계약에 수반되어 발생하는 법적 분쟁을 당사자들이 약정한 계약의 내용에 따라 규율할 수 있도록 하는 것이 타당하다. 그리고 대리모계약의 내용 중 일부가 계약당사자 일방에게 지나치게 불리하거나 불합리한 경우에는, 민법 제137조의 一部無效의 法理를 적용하여 원칙적으로 그 부분만을 무효로 보거나, 경우에 따라서는 계약전체를 무효화면 당사자 일방을 법적으로 보호할 수 있을 것이다. 그리고 대리모가 출산한 子에게 유전적인 모와 출산한 모(대리모)가 있는 경우에는 자연적 혈연관계를 중시하여 遺傳的인 母를 법적인 모로 인정해야 할 것이다. 그러나 이러한 민법을 비롯한 민사법에 대한 해석론만으로는 보조생식으로 인하여 발생되는 법적 문제점과 분쟁을 해결하는 것은 분명히 한계가 있으므로, 이를 구체적으로 규율할 수 있는 민법 등의 개정이나 특별법의 입법이 필요하다고 하겠다.