查詢結果分析
相關文獻
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論人身自由之憲法保障--兼談SARS防疫措施的合憲性=On the Constitutional Protection of Personal Freedom--The Constitutionality of SARS Prevention Measures |
---|---|
作者 | 李建良; | 書刊名 | 思與言 |
卷期 | 41:4 2003.12[民92.12] |
頁次 | 頁111-143 |
分類號 | 581.2321 |
關鍵詞 | 人身自由; 嚴重急性呼吸道症候群; 強制隔離治療; 封院; 居家隔離; 正當法律程序; Personal freedom; Severe acute respiratory syndrome; Compelling isolation strategy; Hospital blockage; Home quarantine strategy; Due process of law; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 2003年3月間,臺灣爆發史無前例的非典型肺炎疫情-「嚴重急性呼吸道症候群」(Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome)(簡稱「SARS」)。隨著疫情的起落,臺灣的公衛體系備受考驗,並衍生諸多值得省思的法律問題,其中政府部門所採取的各項防疫措施,是否符合正當法律程序的法治要求,尤有審視、檢討的必要,就此又以涉及「人民身體自由」(人身自由)者,最值關切。是以,本文乃從人身自由的憲法規範出發,嘗試架構人身自由的何障體系,並兼談傳染病防治措施的合憲性問題。本文最主要的觀點是,就憲法第八條的規範旨趣而言,凡屬剝奪人身自由的措施,不問其名稱、目的、方法或時間久暫,皆應由獨立審判之司法機關(法院)依法定程序予以審查決定之。準此以言,於SARS防疫措施中,強制隔離治療措施或封院,因涉及人身自由的剝奪,故應由法院決定之,至於居家隔離措施,則屬人身自由的限制,僅須有法律依據,並尊守法治國原則的要求,即足當之。 |
英文摘要 | In March 2003, "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome" (so-called "SARS") broke out without precedent in Taiwan. The public health system was exposed to severe challenges, and numerous legal questions arose. It's necessary to review whether the government's disease-prevention measures are correspondent with the principle of due process of law, especially concerning personal freedom. Thus, based on the constitutional regulation of personal freedom, this article tries to build the protection system of personal freedom, and seeks to analyze the problems of the constitutionality of the contagious disease-prevention measures. The main point of article 8 of the Constitution is that any measure calling for deprivation of personal freedom should be decided by the independent judicial branch (court) with the statutory procedure regardless of its title, purpose, method, or the length of terms. Thus among the preventive measures against SARS, both the strategies of compelling isolation and hospital blockage must be decided by court because they are concerned with the deprivation of personal freedom. As to home quarantine strategy, the measures concerned with restriction of personal freedom and not deprivation, thus it could be regarded as appropriate solely in accordance with the statute and in obedience to the rule of the law. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。