頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 藥師法執業處所管制之探討=Discussion for Pharmacists Practicing Law Single Location Restriction |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 林亮光; 范曉瑄; | 書刊名 | 藥學雜誌 |
卷期 | 32:2=127 2016.06[民105.06] |
頁次 | 頁146-150 |
分類號 | 418.02 |
關鍵詞 | 711號解釋; 執業處所; 親自執業; Interpretation No.711; Place-in-charge; Pharmacist-on-duty; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 民國102年7月31日司法院大法官711號解釋公布,宣告藥師法第11條規定「藥師 執業處所應以一處為限」違憲,應自本解釋公布之日起,至遲於屆滿一年時失其效 力。有關藥師執業處所限制,在憲法法庭審議期間即有正、反意見團體各自宣告立場 及立論基礎,專業醫事人員團體例如藥師公會全國聯合會、醫師公會全國聯合會,學 界如台灣藥學會、台灣臨床藥學會,各自表述見解與立場。民國103年6月27日,藥師 法第11條經修正增加但書,限制兩種執業型態藥師得事前報准支援。 本號解釋,基本上是在執業藥師的專業發揮、人力運用、個人執業等面向,對於 地點與時間選擇的自由與衛生主管機關對於國民健康維護、公共利益與藥事人員執業 專業與政策間,角力與衝突的調和。大法官釋字711號解釋是我國大法官自民國38年第 1號解釋至今,66年來第一次對專門執業技術人員身分法中對執業處所限制,做出闡 明與解釋。由於牽涉的又是醫事人員中與醫師人數相近,多達四萬餘人的藥事人員, 引起各方注意。對於這麼重要且具有指標性意義的大法官解釋,且與憲法平等權 (第7 條)、工作權 (第15條) 及比例原則 (第23條) 之闡述,藥師們更應該有更多的瞭解。 |
英文摘要 | July 31, 2013 Interpretation No. 711 was published, which declaring the Article 11 of pharmacists Act restrict pharmacists may only practicing at single location is "unconstitutional, shall from the date of announced of this interpretation, no later than one year expiration that it becomes void. Pharmacists practice restrictions concerning the location, during the consideration of the Constitutional Court that is both positive and negative views of their respective groups declared positions and arguments based on professional medical personnel groups such as the Taiwan Pharmacist Association, Taiwan Medical Association, academia, such as the Pharmaceutical Society of Taiwan, Taiwan Society of Health-System Pharmacy, expressed their opinions and positions. Curiously, obviously restrict practicing location for pharmacists, why Taiwan Medical Association to participate and express opinions? The relieve restrictions is generally welcomed by practicing professional groups, but in this case it is exactly the opposite situation, Taiwan Pharmacist Association combine with Pharmaceutical Society of Taiwan and Taiwan Society of Health-System Pharmacy announce a strong statement state strongly opposed to relieve the restrictions of the practicing location. But scholars count through questionnaires, reflect the pharmacist sub-groups or individual views but also with the local pharmacist association, and learn the full Council at odds. This interpretation indicate that practicing pharmacists professional play, human use, while in private practice for the place and time freedom of choice and health authorities to maintain the national health, public interest and pharmacy personnel practice between professionals and policy struggle and conflict reconcile. Interpretation No. 711 is the first interpretaion regarding healthcare professional Act which is since the No.1 interpretation published till now, during 66 years to make the practice restrictions set forth herein and interpretation. Because involved is similar to the medical personnel in the number of physicians, as many as 40,000 people in the pharmacy staff, has given rise to attention. For such an important indicator of significance and justices have interpreted the Constitution and the right to equality (Article 7), set forth the right to work (Article 15) and the principle of proportionality (Article 23), the pharmacist who should have more To understanding. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。