樂生療養院是為了隔離漢生病患而設，在漢生病被視為是不治之症的年代，更被認為具有高度傳染性，所以漢生病患被強制終生與外界隔離，而這樣的囚禁要到出現治療的特效藥後才告終。但對於大多數與社會及家人失去聯繫的院民來說，早已無家可歸，以院為家變成無奈的選擇，隨著捷運新莊線的施工，在這個「家」終老的微小願望，也出現了變數。雖然關於樂生療養院的爭議，在院舍部分保存、部分重組的方案定案後逐漸落幕，但在這次事件的背後，除了院民的生存權等憲法爭議外，不少人認為深具文化資產保存價值的樂生療養院，卻始終未獲主管機關的青睞，遲遲未能被指定為古蹟一事，卻也恰好突顯了文化資產保存法制的問題，尤其是國家在文化事務上消極不作為的問題。所以，本文即試圖從憲法的角度出發，透過對於社群文化相關內涵的分析等途徑，進行對樂生療養院相關爭議的檢視，以作為後續類似案件的參考。
Losheng Sanatorium was built by the Japanese colonial government. It was designed for quarantine and treatment of lepers. As a result, Losheng Sanatorium became the institution of quarantine and imprisonment for thousands of patients. Besides the debate of human right issues, as a witness of the history in public health in Taiwan, from a cultural perspective Losheng Sanatorium is not only no obstruction of urban development, but in fact can add inestimable value as a cultural asset. In 2008, debates of Losheng Sanatorium was temporarily ended by the negotiating result of partial preservation of main buildings and relocation of some other buildings. After those debates, there are still some problems to be discussed. Since the constitution is generally held to contain basic society values, we will try to find the position of community culture and heritage preservation in the constitution. To analyze those debates in legal study and to avoid this happening again, beyond the legal review of adminis-trative system level, we will use constitutional theories and ju-risprudence method to undertake a legal analysis of those de-bates.
全文瀏覽.pdf