工作權保障與規範談心理師核心業務

The Scope of Psychologists’ Practice: A Discussion Based on Constitutional Guarantees of the Right to Work

此前郭台銘先生原欲參加2024年的總統大選，並且邀請了知名藝人與文化工作者的賴佩霞女士作為其搭檔，然而除了因為美國國籍外，其也因為開設心靈輔導的一對一課程1，引起各方議論。而此前網紅理科太太也因為販售所謂的諮商日記引起爭議，而更別說一般坊間販售心理課程的問題了。但如果不屬於違反心理師法的情況，那心理師的執業範圍應該要如何保障呢？本文打算從心理師目前執業與法規上的困境提起，就憲法中關於工作權規範來做說明。並且進一步提出心理師法關於心理師業務的解釋方向。

Psychology is a relatively late-regulated profession. How should we ensure the scope of practice for psychologists while avoiding overly broad regulations? Constitutional restrictions on occupational freedom follow the so-called three-stage theory. Subjective restrictions on occupational freedom refer to the professional competencies or qualifications that individuals must possess to engage in specific professions, which can be acquired through training—such as knowledge, degrees, or physical abilities. Legislators seeking to impose such restrictions must demonstrate the existence of significant public interest. The establishment of specialized professions constitutes one form of subjective restriction. Another issue to address is how to define the scope of a psychologist’s practice. Crucially, what distinguishes their work from ordinary conversation? Ensuring their professional rights is also a matter of concern.