LEGAL QUALIFICATION OF HUMAN TISSUES AS OBJECTS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS: APPROACHES OF SOUTH AFRICA


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

The article touches upon the issue of legal qualification of human tissues as objects of property rights based on the approach of South African legal order. It was chosen because SA had and still has significant achievements in the field of science and technology, and now legal framework of relations arising from legalization of removal and withdrawal of human tissues is being systematically establish. The study is based on such methods of scientific knowledge as general scientific dialectics, history and comparative legal analysis. The very formulation of the question of the legality of the recognition of ownership on human tissues that can be exercised by any persons (entities) is not new. Novelty of the research consists in the thinking on this issue on the materials of SA legal order and examples of other jurisdictions. It is concluded that SA approach is similar to that of Russian doctrine and legislation.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

Ksenia Belikova

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Institute of Law

Email: BelikovaKsenia@yandex.ru
doctor of sciences (in law), professor of the Department of Civil Law and Proceedings and International Private Law Moscow, Russian Federation

Natalia Badaeva

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Institute of Law

Email: badaeva_nv@rudn.university
PhD in law, associate professor of the Department of Civil Law and Proceedings and International Private Law Moscow, Russian Federation

参考

  1. Бадаева Н.В. Вещно-правовые институты в гражданском праве ЮАР // Вестник Российского университета кооперации. - 2017. - № 1(27). - С. 81-87.
  2. Бадаева Н.В. Право собственности и иные вещные права в Южно-Африканской Республике. // Национальные особенности и перспективы унификации частного права стран БРИКС: учебник: в 2 т. Т. 2 / под ред. д.ю.н., проф. К.М. Беликовой. - М.: РУДН, 2015. - С. 58-72 (582 с.).
  3. Беликова К.М. Правовое регулирование производства, распространения, внедрения и защиты научной ин-формации и инноваций в странах БРИКС на примере ЮАР. // Юридические исследования. - 2019. - № 5. - С. 1-17. doi: 10.25136/2409-7136.2019.5.29541. URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=29541 (дата обращения: 30.05.2019)
  4. Донцов Д.С. Органы и ткани человека как объекты вещного права в Российской Федерации. // Медицинское право. - 2009. - № 2. - С. 43-47.
  5. Ижевская В.Л. Этические и правовые аспекты генетического тестирования и скрининга. // Биоэтика и гуманитарная экспертиза. - 2007. - № 1. - С. 78-95.
  6. Малеина М.Н. Человек и медицина в современном праве. - М.: Бек, 1995.
  7. Пищита А.Н., Климов А.Е. Информированное добровольное согласие в медицине (правовой аспект). // Вестник РУДН. Серия «Медицина». - 2006. - № 1(33). - С. 112-118.
  8. Сударева Е.О. Добровольное согласие как условие медицинского вмешательства в праве РФ и США. // Вестник РУДН. Серия «Юридические науки». - 2008. - № 3. - С. 70-75.
  9. Суховерхий В.Л. Гражданско-правовое регулирование отношений по здравоохранению // Советское государство и право. - 1975. - № 6. - С. 105-109.
  10. Beier K, Schnorrer S, Hoppe N, Lenk C. The Ethical and Legal Regulation of Human Tissue and Biobank Research in Europe: Proceedings of the Tiss. EU Project. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2011.
  11. Belikova, K., Badaeva, N. et al. (2017). The Concept of Real Right in India and South Africa: Specifics of National Regulation and Trends of Harmonization of Law. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 8(3), 799-812. doi: 10.14505//jarle.v8.3(25).13. URL: http://journals. aserspublishing.eu/jarle/index (дата обращения: 01.06.2019).
  12. Carlo Petrini. Ethical and legal considerations regarding the ownership and commercial use of human biological materials and their derivatives. J Blood Med. 2012, 3: 87-96. Published online 2012 Aug 7. doi: 10.2147/JBM.S36134. Corrected in J Blood Med. 2018; 9: 193. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440234/ (дата обращения: 04.06.2019)
  13. Gibson S.F. The Washington University v. Catalona: Determining ownership of genetic samples. Jurimetrics J 2008, 48: 167-191.
  14. Michael S Pepper. Partial relief from the regulatory vacuum involving human tissues through enactment of chapter 8 of the National Health Act and regulations thereto. // South African Medical Journal, Vol. 102, No 9 (2012). URL: http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/rt/printerFriendly /5940/4415 (дата обращения: 31.05.2019)
  15. Michael S. Pepper. Human Tissue Legislation. 2014. URL: https://www.wbmt.org/fileadmin/pdf/10CapeTownWS1-2014/3late-afternoon/03-Pepperpresentation.pdf )дата обращения: 31.05.2019) Nöthling-Slabbert MN. Human bodies in law: Arbitrary discursive constructions? Stellenbosch L Rev 2008,19(1):71-100.
  16. Van der Walt A.J., Pienaar G.J. Chapter 4: Introduction to ownership. In: Introduction to the Law of Property (5th ed). Cape Town: Juta, 2006: 39-47.
  17. Mahomed S. The legal position on the classification of human tissue in South Africa: Can tissues be owned? // Vol. 6, No 1 (2013). URL: http://sajbl.org.za/index.php/sajbl/article/view/258/285 (дата обращения: 09.04.2019).

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载


##common.cookie##