美國、歐盟、台灣對醫療廣告限制之人權審查取徑比較

A Comparative Study of Human Rights Review Approaches to Medical Advertising Restrictions in the United States, the European Union, and Taiwan

對於醫療專業人士之廣告限制，各國均有人質疑限制過多，而至法院訴訟。美國對此類議題認為屬於商業言論，而採取中度偏嚴格審查。台灣大法官受到美國論述影響，對醫師之醫療廣告限制，從言論自由角度切入，採取中度審查。本文希望比較歐洲人權法院與歐洲法院對於專門職業人員廣告限制之案例，觀察他們所採用的人權類型以及審查方式，與美國、台灣進行比較。
歐洲人權法院對此專業人士廣告限制，也是從言論自由角度出發，進行比例原則審查。相對地，歐洲法院對此類問題並非從言論自由角度出發，而是從提供服務自由角度切入，也進行比例原則審查。雖然歐洲人權法院與歐洲法院都採取比例原則審查，但沒有發展出明確的不同審查標準，對比例原則的操作與論述較為模糊。本文在介紹美國、歐洲人權法院、歐洲法院對醫療廣告限制之審查後，進行比較分析與提出幾點反思。包括，1.從職業自由與言論自由角度切入是否真有不同。2.德式比例原則的審查標準與美式類型化審查的對應關係。3.台灣憲法法庭採取的中度審查內涵是否明確。

Concerns over the restrictions on advertising by medical professionals have led to litigation in various countries, with questions arising about excessive limitations. In the United States, such issues are considered commercial speech and undergo an intermediate scrutiny tending towards strictness. Influenced by U.S. discourse, the Constitutional Court of Taiwan also approaches restrictions on physician advertising from the perspective of freedom of speech, employing an intermediate scrutiny. This paper aims to compare the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to advertising restrictions on specialized professionals, observing the types of human rights they apply and their methods of review, in comparison with those of the United States and Taiwan.
The ECtHR examines restrictions on professional advertising from the standpoint of freedom of speech, applying the principle of proportionality. Conversely, the CJEU does not necessarily approach such issues from the perspective of freedom of speech but rather from that of freedom to provide services, also applying the principle of proportionality. Although both the ECtHR and CJEU apply the principle of proportionality and have not developed distinct review standards, their operation and discourse on proportionality are somewhat vague. This paper conducts a comparative analysis and reflection after examining the scrutiny of medical advertising restrictions by the United States, the ECtHR, and the CJEU. It includes several points of reflection: 1. Whether there are differences in approaches when considering occupational freedom versus freedom of speech. 2. The correspondence between the German-style proportionality principle and the typified scrutiny in the United States. 3. The clarity of the content of the intermediate scrutiny adopted by the Constitutional Court of Taiwan.