從大法官釋字第711號論藥師工作權之保障

A study of Pharmacists' freedom of Profession from Grand Justices interpretation No. 711

於現代法治國家中，國家所為之干預除須有法令依據外，其手段亦須與所欲實現之公益目的相當。由於藥品調劑與使用攸關國民健康之重大公益，故為加強藥師之專任責任，我國藥師法明定藥師執業處所以一處為限，然該規定卻遭司法院大法官作出解釋，認定不符憲法保障之工作權及比例原則，並宣告其限期失效。儘管目前該項爭議因修法而暫告平息，但本件解釋之爭點，毋寧在於是否允准藥師可於他處執業的空間？由於其牽涉到藥師工作權與民眾用藥安全，實有探究之必要。據此，本文針對限制藥師執業處所一事，將檢視藥師法之規範背景，並循大法官解釋之脈絡評析後續的修法取捨，並對現行規定提出若干建議供各界參考。 All restrictions on basic rights and freedom from the state are only allowed through Article 23 of the Constitution. In the past, in order to maintain the full-time responsibility, Pharmacists' workplace is restricted by Article 11 of Pharmacist Law. After a review of Grand Justices, they make an InterpretationNo.711 and consider that Pharmacists' right to work is guaranteed by the Constitution. If the state needs to restrict their right to work, it must have legitimacy. Because of this reason, they declared the disputed provision above is invalid after one year, so it is necessary to amend it immediately. To amend the disputed provision, it is necessary to review the relationship between the Right to work and the legislative purpose. To achieve this goal, this article attempts to discuss from constitution level and follow the context of Grand Justice Interpretation No. 711 and provides some suggestions for balancing the interests between pharmacists' Right to work and the drug safety for people.