最新一期
- 發布單位：科技法律研究所
禁止醫師為醫療廣告之合憲性探討──從美國法之觀點試評憲法法庭112年憲判字第17號判決
The Constitutionality of Prohibition on Physicians Making Medical Advertisement—Analysis of The TCC Judgement No. 17 in 2023 from Perspectives of American Law
作者：許炳華
出版年月日：202503
關鍵詞：醫師廣告；言論自由；商業性言論；中度審查；接收資訊之自由；Physician Advertising；Free Speech；Commercial Speech；Intermediate Scrutiny；Right to Receive Information
中文摘要
廣告在我們生活中日漸普及且無可避免，專門職業尤其是醫療及法律「專門職業及技術人員」等希冀能告知潛在之客戶其所提供服務之特殊性，以期能在同業間取得比較利益，而廣告即為最有效之途徑。我國憲法法庭在2023年11月3日就醫療法第84條規定：「非醫療機構，不得為醫療廣告。」其中關於禁止醫師為醫療廣告之規定宣告失其效力，判決由表意人（對於醫師為醫療廣告之限制），及資訊接受者（對於民眾接收醫療資訊之限制）等言論自由之面向來進行探討。當中並適用中度審查以平衡專技人員受言論自由保障之權利及政府追求保護公民安全及福祉之利益。承認醫師之言論自由，並非意謂國家完全不得規範醫師之言論。參酌美國之經驗，重點應放在要求所為之廣告必須真實及無誤導性，當標準明確，諸如醫師、律師及其他專技人員亦得以衡酌其廣告之方式以最大之可能性傳達資訊予公眾，並避免誤導或欺騙。至於應然之規範，得求諸於我國醫療法之增訂及參考公平交易法之細部規定。
英文摘要
Advertising is an inescapable and increasingly prevalent aspect of life. Professionals in the legal and medical fields seek to inform prospective clients or patients about the specifics of the individual’s practice and gain a competitive advantage over their peers. Often advertising is the most effective approach. On November 3, 2023, the Constitutional Court of our country declared the provision of Article 84 of the Medical Care Act which states:“Non-medical care institutions shall not make advertisements for medical care.”is unconstitutional. The judgment explores the aspects of freedom of speech regarding the restriction on physicians engaging in medical advertising, and the restriction on the public’s access to medical information, and on the restriction on the public’s access to medical information. Applying intermediate scrutiny to balance a professional’s free speech with the state’s interests in protecting citizen’s safety and welfare. Recognizing the free speech of physicians does not mean that physicians can object to any form of state regulations. Considering the experience of the United States, the focus should be on requiring that advertisements must be truthful and not misleading. When the standards are clear, attorneys and physicians and their professional associations must determine what methods of advertising have the greatest propensity to inform the public and the least propensity to mislead or deceive. As for the normative regulations, they can be sought from the amendments to our Medical Care Act and by referring to the detailed provisions of the Fair Trade Act.
作者：許炳華
出版年月日：202503
關鍵詞：醫師廣告；言論自由；商業性言論；中度審查；接收資訊之自由；Physician Advertising；Free Speech；Commercial Speech；Intermediate Scrutiny；Right to Receive Information
中文摘要
廣告在我們生活中日漸普及且無可避免，專門職業尤其是醫療及法律「專門職業及技術人員」等希冀能告知潛在之客戶其所提供服務之特殊性，以期能在同業間取得比較利益，而廣告即為最有效之途徑。我國憲法法庭在2023年11月3日就醫療法第84條規定：「非醫療機構，不得為醫療廣告。」其中關於禁止醫師為醫療廣告之規定宣告失其效力，判決由表意人（對於醫師為醫療廣告之限制），及資訊接受者（對於民眾接收醫療資訊之限制）等言論自由之面向來進行探討。當中並適用中度審查以平衡專技人員受言論自由保障之權利及政府追求保護公民安全及福祉之利益。承認醫師之言論自由，並非意謂國家完全不得規範醫師之言論。參酌美國之經驗，重點應放在要求所為之廣告必須真實及無誤導性，當標準明確，諸如醫師、律師及其他專技人員亦得以衡酌其廣告之方式以最大之可能性傳達資訊予公眾，並避免誤導或欺騙。至於應然之規範，得求諸於我國醫療法之增訂及參考公平交易法之細部規定。
英文摘要
Advertising is an inescapable and increasingly prevalent aspect of life. Professionals in the legal and medical fields seek to inform prospective clients or patients about the specifics of the individual’s practice and gain a competitive advantage over their peers. Often advertising is the most effective approach. On November 3, 2023, the Constitutional Court of our country declared the provision of Article 84 of the Medical Care Act which states:“Non-medical care institutions shall not make advertisements for medical care.”is unconstitutional. The judgment explores the aspects of freedom of speech regarding the restriction on physicians engaging in medical advertising, and the restriction on the public’s access to medical information, and on the restriction on the public’s access to medical information. Applying intermediate scrutiny to balance a professional’s free speech with the state’s interests in protecting citizen’s safety and welfare. Recognizing the free speech of physicians does not mean that physicians can object to any form of state regulations. Considering the experience of the United States, the focus should be on requiring that advertisements must be truthful and not misleading. When the standards are clear, attorneys and physicians and their professional associations must determine what methods of advertising have the greatest propensity to inform the public and the least propensity to mislead or deceive. As for the normative regulations, they can be sought from the amendments to our Medical Care Act and by referring to the detailed provisions of the Fair Trade Act.
