頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 評析限制藥師執業處所之修法動向=The Pharmacists' Right to Work and Full-Time Responsibility--Commentary of Grand Justices Interpretation No. 711 |
---|---|
作者 | 陸敏清; 嚴奇均; | 書刊名 | 藥學雜誌 |
卷期 | 31:3=124 2015.09[民104.09] |
頁次 | 頁143-147 |
分類號 | 419.55 |
關鍵詞 | 藥師執業自由; 工作權; 專任責任; The pharmacists' right to work; Full time responsibility; Workplace restriction; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 藥師之業務,主要在於提供與藥物相關之知識及照護,使病人得以得到正確的藥 物資訊及治療,而為加強藥師之專任責任及管理,藥師法第11條明定藥師執行業務應 僅限於一處 (以下簡稱系爭規定),但經大法官作成釋字第711號解釋,認為此舉違反 憲法保障人民工作權與比例原則,從而宣告系爭規定限期失效,且旋即有修正該規定 之必要,對此,主管機關與相關團體即均提出相應的修正版本,只是究竟藥師執業處 所應侷限以一處或以開放多處執業為佳?其所涉重點除須考量藥師的工作權,民眾的 用藥安全及確保國民健康亦須斟酌,進而如何透過修法加以兼顧,自然是重要的課 題。循此,本文試圖重新檢視該系爭規定之規範意旨,並透由大法官解釋之脈絡,評 析後續的修法動態謹供各界酌參。 |
英文摘要 | Pharmacists workplace is restricted by Article 11 of Pharmacist Law in order to maintain the full time responsibility. After a review of Grand Justices, they make an Interpretation (No.711), considers that Pharmacists right to work is guaranteed by the Constitution. If the government needs to restrict their right to work, it must have legitimacy. Because of this reason, they declared the disputed provision above is invalid after one year, so it is necessary to amend it immediately. To correct this error provision, it is necessary to review the relationship between the Right to work and the legislative purpose of the disputed provision. To achieve this goal, this article attempts to discuss from constitution level and follow the context of Grand Justice Interpretation No. 711. For the goal above, we provides some suggestions for balancing the interests between pharmacists' Right to work and the drug safety for people. Meanwhile, we also comment the various version of amendments of the draft. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。