论冷冻胚胎的法律地位

Cryopreserved embryo transfer, as one of the assisted reproductive technologies (ART), while safeguarding the right to reproduce, raises numerous complex legal issues. Historical disputes over cryopreserved embryos have primarily centered on determining right holders and have generally positioned cryopreserved embryos as objects. But the latest judicial precedents recognize that children born through cryopreserved embryo transfer have the right to claim child support for torts committed by their fathers during the cryopreserved embryo stage, thus confirming the stance that cryopreserved embryos are subjects. This revolutionary shift has transitioned the debate over the legal status of cryopreserved embryos in China from theory to practice. Theoretically, there are three divergent views on the legal status of cryopreserved embryos: the object theory, the subject theory, and the intermediary theory. Judicial practice follows the theoretical disputes, with various precedents leading to starkly different conclusions regarding the legal status of cryopreserved embryos, resulting in a state of disorder in judicial rulings. The main reason for this phenomenon is the multifaceted nature of cryopreserved embryos, which are related to, inter alia, life, personality, ethics, and morality. There has not been a unified consensus in legislation yet, and the embarrassing situation of legislative deficiencies can only be temporarily alleviated through judicial judgments. It is necessary to build a tiered system on the legal status of cryopreserved embryos. In terms of the legal status of a cryopreserved embryo implanted into a womb, the cryopreserved embryo should be confirmed to have the capacity as a subject of law in accordance with Article 16 of the Civil Code on the protection of fetuses’ interests. Before implantation, a retroactive rule may be applied, thereby recognizing that a cryopreserved embryo still in a cryopreserved state also has the capacity as a subject of law. While in terms of the legal status of a cryopreserved embryo hasn’t yet implanted into a womb, the presumption rule shall apply: the embryo shall be presumed to be a subject or object according to whether there is a possibility of implantation. 作为辅助生殖技术之一的冷冻胚胎移植在保障生育权的同时，也产生很多难解的法律问题。此前对于冷冻胚胎的争议主要集中于谁才是权利人，即坚持冷冻胚胎为客体的立场，但最新判例认为，利用冷冻胚胎移植出生的孩子，对其处于冷冻胚胎阶段针对其父亲的侵权行为具有抚养费请求权，即确认冷冻胚胎为主体的立场。这一颠覆性的立场变化，使得中国对于冷冻胚胎法律地位的争议从理论走向实践。理论上，对冷冻胚胎的法律地位存在客体说、主体说和中间体说三种观点，且分歧巨大。司法实践也在步理论争议的后尘，各种判例对冷冻胚胎法律地位的认定结果迥异，这使得冷冻胚胎法律地位的司法裁判呈现无序的状态。导致这种现象的主要原因在于，冷冻胚胎关涉到生命、人格、伦理、道德等，立法也未形成统一的共识，只能暂时通过司法裁判的方式缓解立法缺失的尴尬处境。应分层构建冷冻胚胎的不同法律地位，对植入母体内的冷冻胚胎的法律地位，应参照适用《民法典》第16条关于胎儿利益保护的规定赋予其主体资格，在其被植入母体前，可以采用溯及规则，溯及既往的认为处于冷冻阶段的冷冻胚胎也具有主体地位。对植入母体前的冷冻胚胎的法律地位，应采取推定规则，根据是否具有植入的可能性，推定其为主体还是客体。