法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 正本清源:論醫藥分工的嬗變與調劑權歸屬(Original Source: The Evolution of Separation of Medicine and Pharmacy and the Ownership of Rights for Dispensing)
編著譯者: 余萬能
出版日期: 2019.10
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦醫事法報告第 36 期 /7-19 頁
頁  數: 8 點閱次數: 456
下載點數: 32 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 余萬能
關 鍵 詞: 處方監督制衡調劑醫藥分業
中文摘要: 醫藥專業分工制度之目的係為使病人獲得最佳的醫療及用藥服務,惟因醫藥間欠缺信賴,後演變為調劑權之爭議。調劑向來皆規範於藥事法規,大法官早在釋字第 191 號及第 404 號解釋即謂調劑乃係藥師業務,因此醫師所爭執的其實是包括交付藥劑在內的完整醫療權,惟釋字第 778 號解釋認為調劑是醫師之固有權利,藥事法第 102 條第 2 項予以限縮係立法選擇。本文乃由歷史脈絡及立法始末探討調劑權歸屬,分析臺灣現行醫藥分工之制度問題,探討由雙軌制走向單軌制的可能性。
英文關鍵詞: prescriptioncheck and balancedispensingseparation of medicine and pharmacy
英文摘要: Separation of medicine and pharmacy is a system to obtain the best medical and pharmaceutical care services for patients. However, due to the lack of trust between physicians and pharmacists, it has evolved into a dispute over the right of dispensing for a long time. The dispensing has always been regulated in pharmaceutical regulations. The J.Y. Interpretation No. 191 and No. 404 announced by the Constitutional Court concluded that the dispensing is the pharmacist,s obligation. But the physicians disputed that the complete medical rights should include the delivery of drugs due to the interpretation of the J.Y. Interpretation No. 778 explained that the dispensing is the inherent right of physicians however Article 102, paragraph 2 of Pharmaceutical Law is a legislative choice. In this issue the ownership of rights for dispensing and the current separation of medicine and pharmacy system are discussed with the historical context and the legislation construction. And the possibility of moving to the mono-track system from the two-track system is explored.
目  次: 壹、調劑是藥師依據醫師處方之接續醫療行為
貳、醫藥分業(單軌制)或醫藥專業分工(雙軌制)之選擇
參、醫藥分工法律制度溯源
肆、調劑權究屬之司法爭訟
伍、釋字第 778 號解釋理由值得思索之處
陸、釋字第 778 號解釋值得一顧之指明部分-代結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
返回功能列