我國傳染病防治補償制度之研究

Abstract

傳染病防治是人類亙古以來不斷被迫面對的挑戰，我國政府於屢次疫情衝擊下，亦曾推行各種措施以為因應，惟同時難免對人民權益造成一定之干預及損失，則政府就此所提供之相關補償性措施，是否確實能填補受前開防疫措施限制者所受的犧牲損失，並非無疑。從本文就傳染病防治法及特定重大疫情下防疫補償相關規定之爬梳，即可看出其補償要件及範圍上仍有許多值得深入探討之處。進而本文從補償法理基礎出發探討此問題，重點環繞根本性法理基礎即個人權利保障及負擔平等分配間權衡，及如何考量傳染病防治手段本身之特性。並以近年屢受關注且對人民生活亦影響廣泛之新冠疫情期間停業補償及隔離補償為例，參考美國法為比較法上借鏡討論以嘗試就其補償要件及範圍設定等提出制度上建議。 首先，基於傳染病防治有賴政府積極介入管制並分配風險之特殊性，補償法理基礎上應著重受防疫限制者及其他未受限制者間就防疫成本之公平分配，藉由擴大補償對象以降低該限制對個人的衝擊，展現透過補償以使社會共同承擔防疫成本之團結意義。這也是本文在補償法理基礎之權衡上，主張相較於個人權利保障，應更著重負擔公平分配之原因。基於此法理基礎前提，補償要件即是否予補償與之判斷，應兼及考量政府防疫手段之目的性質及所造成之損失程度，並考量前階段即防疫決策既均高度尊重行政專業而法治國原則有所讓步，則於後階段即就此之補償上宜採取較寬鬆判準。如停業補償宜不區分行業或經營型態，一律明確以遭停業限制一事本身為補償要件；隔離補償亦不宜逕排除染疫或領有薪資者。再就補償範圍之設定，同樣考量受防疫限制者及公眾間基於整體社會資源有限性之公平分配，雖無需追求完全填補實際損失，惟仍宜盡量使補償範圍全面地反映各種損失態樣及性質以兼顧其實益。如停業補償得考量不同行業別因停業限制所受具體影響調整其補償方式及額度；隔離補償亦應包括各項經濟及非經濟損失並因應不同之補償對象設定補償範圍，並避免隔離措施加劇既有結構性不平等。 一次次的傳染病疫情一再警醒大眾抗疫始終不能僅是個人之事，而是群體共同的責任，補償即彰顯此團結意義，為預防隨時可能再起之疫情衝擊，如何建立能更緊密地讓社會在疫情下凝聚為一共同體的基礎防疫補償法制，始終是重要課題。

Disease prevention and control have been enduring challenges throughout human history. In response to recurrent epidemics, our government has implemented various measures. However, these measures inevitably entail certain interventions and losses of people's rights. Whether the compensation measures provided by the government can effectively compensate for the sacrifices and losses incurred by those restricted by these epidemic prevention measures is not without doubt. Through an examination of the Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Act and related compensation provisions for specific major epidemics, it is evident that there are still many aspects of compensation criteria and scope that warrant further exploration. This paper explores this issue from the perspective of legal principles, focusing on the fundamental legal basis of balancing individual rights protection and equitable distribution of burdens, with consideration of the characteristics of infectious disease prevention and control measures. Taking the business closure compensation and quarantine compensation during the widely discussed COVID-19 pandemic in recent years as examples, the paper discusses the criteria and scope of the above compensation with reference to U.S. law. Firstly, based on the nature of government intervention and risk allocation in infectious disease prevention and control, the legal basis for compensation should emphasize fair distribution of epidemic prevention costs between those restricted by epidemic control measures and others who are not restricted. Expanding the scope of compensation to mitigate the impact of these restrictions on individuals demonstrates the solidarity of society in sharing the costs of epidemic prevention. This paper argues that, compared to individual rights protection, the emphasis should be on equitable burden distribution. Based on this legal premise, the criteria for epidemic compensation should consider the purpose of government epidemic prevention measures and the extent of the losses caused. It suggests adopting a broader standard for compensation decisions in later stages, respecting administrative expertise and the rule of law principles in the initial epidemic prevention decisions. For example, business closure compensation should not distinguish between industries or types of businesses but identify closure itself as a criterion for compensation. Quarantine compensation should not exclude those infected or those receiving salaries. Regarding the scope of compensation, considering the limited social resources, it is not necessary to fully compensate for actual losses, but efforts should be made to comprehensively reflect various types and natures of losses to balance practical benefits. For instance, business closure compensation should adjust its methods and amounts according to the specific impacts of closure restrictions on different industries. Quarantine compensation should include various economic and non-economic losses and adjust compensation scope based on different compensation recipients while avoiding exacerbating existing structural inequalities caused by quarantine measures. The successive impacts of epidemic outbreaks repeatedly remind the public that epidemic prevention cannot be solely an individual matter but a collective responsibility. Compensation thus embodies this unity, highlighting the need to establish a flexible and cohesive foundational epidemic prevention compensation system that can adapt to various changes and more closely unite society as a community during epidemics remains a crucial issue.