論運動防護師法規之建制

Abstract

本研究係為檢視我國現行運動防護員之法制度，是否健全和是否具立法必要性為主要目的。現行運動防護員法制度下，運動防護員業務範圍之授權，有再授權之情事，其工作角色因醫事法規和體育運動法規之不一致，亦產生業務範圍法規上相衝突之狀況，換言之，體育署所公告之運動防護員業務範疇，涉及復健相關之醫療業務，又其職能和權責包括以儀器進行恢復或治療，惟衛生福利部卻以函釋禁止其從事醫療相關業務，自有法規範矛盾之問題。運動防護員和其相對人之權益保障上，現行法規範僅以國體法第10條加以相繩，並概括性授權體育署得公告體育專業人員之種類及其證照相關規範，此外，體育署又以概括授權再行授權概括條款，是否違反法治國原則，及法規範是否充足完善，自有商榷餘地。目前鮮有相關之研究，有研究之缺口，綜上開理由亦有研究之必要性和急迫性。本文採文件研究法、法釋義學和比較法學等研究方法，探討運動防護師法規建制之必要性和內容。本文發現國體法第10條無法完整拘束運動防護員資格檢定辦法，亦無法完整保障利害關係人和運動防護員之相關權益，有違反法律保留原則和授權明確性原則。又參照美國法制上，運動防護師之養成、證照和相關配套措施，較能保障運動防護師具有市場上所需之專業能力外，亦有較完善之檢核和稽查措施，能平衡地確保運動防護師之能力，和相關利害關係人之生命、身體和健康法益。我國應可參考美國運動防護師之法制度，且為能夠達我國法規之一致性，應如同驗光師之專門職業人員制度，以國家專業技術人員考試方法管理，並不限於醫學相關科系始能培育運動防護師。This study examines the ambiguous legal framework governing athletic trainers in Taiwan. Under the current legal framework, the scope of practice for athletic trainers is based on delegated authority, which at times leads to further delegation. However, inconsistencies between medical regulations and sports-related laws create conflicts regarding their legal scope of practice. Specifically, while the Sports Administration recognizes athletic trainers as providers of rehabilitation-related medical services—including the use of recovery and treatment equipment—the Ministry of Health and Welfare explicitly prohibits them from engaging in medical activities through official interpretations. This discrepancy highlights contradictions within the legal framework. Regarding the protection of athletic trainers and their clients, the current legal structure relies solely on Article 10 of the National Sports Act. This provision broadly authorizes the Sports Administration to define the classification and certification standards for sports professionals. However, the Sports Administration issues a generalized authorization, which is subsequently re-delegated through broadly worded clauses. This raises concerns about potential violations of the rule of law and the adequacy of the existing legal framework. Given the lack of research on this issue, there is a clear gap in the study of the legal and regulatory aspects governing athletic trainers, emphasizing the need for further investigation. This study adopts document analysis, legal hermeneutics, and comparative law methods to assess the necessity and structure of a legal framework for athletic trainers. Findings indicate that Article 10 of the National Sports Act fails to sufficiently regulate the qualification examination process for athletic trainers and does not adequately safeguard the rights and interests of both stakeholders and athletic trainers themselves. This deficiency contradicts the principle of legal reservation and the requirement for clear authorization. A comparative analysis of the U.S. legalframework for athletic trainers reveals that its structured education, certification, and regulatory measures better ensure that professionals meet job market requirements. Additionally, the U.S. system includes comprehensive review and oversight mechanisms to maintain a balance between the competency of athletic trainers and the protection of stakeholders' rights to life, physical integrity, and health. To improve regulatory consistency, we could draw upon the U.S. model by establishing a dedicated professional personnel system for athletic trainers, akin to that of optometrists. This would involve managing athletic trainers through a national professionals and technologists examination system while avoiding restrictions that limit training exclusively to medical-related academic disciplines.