Physicians carry heavy responsibilities to diagnose and treat patients, which is crucial to national health. For that reason, the government has certain restrictions over their work. It is disputed whether the restrictions on professional freedom of doctors are regulated by Article 102, Paragraph 2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law. According to interpretation No. 778 of the Supreme People’s Court, it is considered that the parent law of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act restricts the right of doctors to dispense drugs, and it does not violate Article 23 of the Constitution. The principle of proportionality is constitutional. However, provisions in the implementation of Article 50 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and the notification of medical emergencies all add restrictions not included in the law, they exceed the provisions of the parent law, and are inconsistent with the purpose of the principle of legal reservation in Article 23 of the Constitution. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Law regulates and restricts the right to dispense medicine. This restriction covers the public interest in the safety of drug use to protect national health. Compared with the public welfare that this regulation is intended to protect, the damage caused by the legislators is unbalanced with the interests they intend to achieve. Therefore, the state’s restriction of the doctor’s right to work is not unconstitutional. This article focuses on the interpretation of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 778 of the Judicial Court, and discusses current Pharmaceutical Affairs Law. The state’s intent to protect national health has resulted in restricting physicians’ right to dispense medicine. The constitutionality of the restrictions is assessed by analysing the content of the interpretation, weighing the trade-off between public interest and the right to work, comparing against the US and Japan pharmaceutical industries, and consider that the current dual-track system has caused a crisis in the operation of the community pharmacy. Therefore, we should not implement the division of prescribing and dispensing. Efforts should be made to revise from the current dual track system to a one track system. In this way, the division of labour in the medical profession is more complete, so that national health can be fulfilled and the state’s obligations under the Constitution can be fulfilled.