| 摘要: | 依憲法規定，人民之人身自由受到保障，不容任意侵犯，但精神衛生法中強制住院措施，對於被拘禁之精神病人而言，係人身自由之重大干預，故本論文之核心即為強制住院治療制度中「人身自由與正當法律程序」保障是否足夠充分之問題。過往精神衛生法中，強制住院之決定無須事先經由司法審查，而引發論者之質疑。惟2022年12月14日新修正公布之精神衛生法，雖已有強制住院須由法院事前審查決定之明文規定，可謂化解法官保留原則欠缺之爭議，但是強制住院固然侵害精神病人之人身自由權，在採取法官保留後，其相關的實體或程序規定是否已經足夠嚴謹與細緻化？受拘禁之病患在程序保障上是否已相當充分？法院在介入審酌之程序上標準為何？是否足夠嚴密？將會是本文所欲進一步瞭解釐清之重點。
另外，許多國際公約也就精神病人人身自由之保障有相關規定，其中身心障礙者權利公約之規定，與我國法在適用上發生衝突，關於二者間該如何權衡，殊值討論；在外國法部分，美國、德國與加拿大之精神衛生法制均相當進步，而有值得我國借鏡之處，方能提升對於人身自由與正當法律程序原則之保障；此外，歐洲人權法院與德國聯邦憲法法院，亦曾對強制住院案件發表過見解，可見外國法院對此議題之重視，而法院所闡明之意旨，應可供我國司法實務作為參考，以修正我國傳統實務見解運作不當之處。準此，本文試圖尋找出精神衛生法強制住院規定中有何不足或規範不周者，並透過相關理論之探討，以及有關國際公約與外國法制之分析與比較，瞭解現行法制不當之處，並提供修正上之建議，以及可修改之方向，以作為將來修法或相關法制設計上之參考依據。;According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, the personal freedom is protected and should not be arbitrarily violated. However, in the Mental Health Act, mandatory hospitalization measures composing a significant intervention into personal freedom for mental disorders. Therefore, the central focus of this thesis is whether the protection of "personal freedom and due process of law " is sufficiently comprehensive within the system of mandatory hospitalization for treatment. In the past, judicial review is not required in the decisions regarding mandatory hospitalization under the Mental Health Act, which leading to questioning by scholars. Although with the amendment of Mental Health Act, promulgated on December 14, 2022, explicitly states that mandatory hospitalization must undergo prior judicial review, addressing the controversy over the lack of a principle of judicial reservation, questions arise regarding whether the substantive or procedural provisions related to mandatory hospitalization are rigorous and detailed enough after the adoption of the judicial reservation. Are procedural safeguards adequate for detained patients? What are the standards for the court to intervene in the review process? Is it rigorous enough? These questions will be the focus of this thesis to further understand and clarify.
Furthermore, many international conventions have provisions related to the protection of personal freedom for individuals with mental disorders. Especially, how to balance the conflict between the The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the law of our domestic laws is worth discussing. In terms of foreign laws, the mental health laws of the United States, Germany, and Canada have advanced considerably, providing valuable insights for our country to learn from, in order to enhance the protection of personal freedom and the principle of due process. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have expressed opinions on mandatory hospitalization cases, highlighting the importance foreign courts place on this issue. The insights provided by these foreign courts can serve as references for our judicial practice to address inadequacies in the current legal system. Therefore, this thesis aims to identify shortcomings or inadequacies in the mandatory hospitalization provisions of the Mental Health Act through the exploration of relevant theories, analysis, and comparison with international conventions and foreign legal systems, to provide suggestions for amendments and possible directions for revision, serving as a reference for future legislative revisions or the design of related legal frameworks. |
