請繼續支持與聲援蘇清泉理事長的主張

[reformer]

請繼續支持與聲援蘇清泉理事長的主張，
不可讓藥蝨公會理事長過度椪風及囂張！

請看藍字部分蘇理事長所言，紅字部分是對方回應。（紅字當掉他）
https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%8F%8D%E5% ... 00899.html
反對報備支援制 藥師冒雨上街
台灣醒報台灣醒報 – 2014年6月8日 下午6:23

相關內容
【台灣醒報記者李昀澔台北報導】「我們在大雨中呼籲，《藥師法》第11條修法，不應開放藥師在醫療機構及藥局間相互支援。」藥師公會全聯會8日號召全台5千名藥師及藥劑生走上凱道，抗議立法院受立委蘇清泉等醫界代表影響，有意鬆綁藥師不得「報備支援」的限制，罔顧民眾用藥安全。蘇清泉則表示，「醫、藥完全分業」訴求，與該條文違憲部分無關，不應混為一談。
【藥師法違憲將失效】 《藥師法》第11條原規範藥師執業處所「僅限一處」，經大法官認定違反《憲法》保障人民自由選擇工作場所權益，若未修正將於今年7月失效。藥師全聯會秘書長曾中龍指出，政院版修正條文載明藥師在藥癮治療、傳染病防治、義診、巡迴醫療、緊急或公益需求等狀況下，可事先向各縣市衛生局報備支援，業已通過1讀，卻在2讀朝野協商時硬是納入「機構間支援」版本，「完全流於政治角力。」
到場聲援藥師的陳姓、黃姓律師分析，大法官釋憲所提到的修法原則，除需兼顧公益與緊急需求，重點在於不得違背《藥師法》立法意旨，也就是必須保有藥師的「專任責任」，包括親自調劑等執業特性；而藥師是所有醫護人員中專任責任「程度」最高者，這也就是為什麼醫界質疑所有醫護人員都能報備支援，藥師全聯會仍堅持藥師不能開放的理由。
【藥師支援爭議難解】 醫界贊成藥師報備支援的另一個原因，也是當初聲請釋憲6名藥師的主要訴求，係藥師有緊急請假需求時能尋求「代班」協助；如此一來對偏鄉民眾也較有利，不致因藥師請假歇業而影響領藥的便利性。曾中龍反駁，部分偏鄉醫師具有調劑權，可在缺乏藥師時為民眾服務，並不構成全面開放藥師支援的理由，開放支援反而可能導致醫療機構減少藥師聘僱員額，改以「支援」應付人力不足問題。
「當初聲請釋憲的是藥師，這整件事都不是醫界主動提出的，」遭藥師全聯會點名的醫師全聯會理事長蘇清泉大聲喊冤表示，藥師全聯會提出的避免藥物浪費、強化用藥安全及醫藥分業單軌制，「跟違憲的條文有什麼關係？」
蘇清泉說，包括提高醫院及診所處方箋釋出比例、健保調升藥師專業技能給付等措施，才能真正照顧藥師權益並凸顯其重要，「我也都贊成，但現在應該先處理違憲的問題才對。」
【政院傾向開放支援】 蘇清泉指出，全台每日門診約百萬人次，其中49%為診所患者，而1萬1千多家診所中有8千多家聘僱藥師，藥局處理的處方箋僅約5萬多張，「現在急著強推醫藥分業，完全釋出處方箋，藥局藥師『吞得下去』嗎？」曾中龍表示，醫藥單軌制應循序漸進推動，先由落實醫院分級做起，大型醫院處理住院、急診及特殊門診，一般門診則由診所負責，自然有機會達成單軌制，而非修法破壞藥師專業。
衛福部針對該修正案所提最終版本，結合立委田秋堇、蘇清泉及醫師全聯會等版本，允許藥師事先報備後，得於醫療機構及藥局間支援；蘇清泉透露，藥師全聯會理事長李蜀平先前已簽名同意卻又反悔，「罵我實在沒道理」，而另一方面，包括衛環召委劉建國等在野立委的態度，則傾向讓該條文失效後另立較完整、各界接受度較高的新條文，「藥師執業仍受各衛生局管制，根本沒那麼嚴重。」
（請注意醫師有調劑權發言人的身分！）

[gary]

[陳暘]

請大家抽空去facebook中的"玉山林"參加論戰.
藥師法第11條已被大法官判定違憲,今年 8月1日前若修法未完成就報廢. 藥聯會和其關連者推出不但不給最需要的原來藥師請假或突然離職時, 由別的藥師來報備支援, 而且把支援侷限在例外又非屬藥師專門的藥癮防治, 巡迴醫療等等. 衛生主管機關對於醫事人員報備支援早已建立線上申請系統, 行之有年. 對於申請支援時間及地點已設有嚴格的管控機制, 並有效管理藥師專業品質, 制度完善, 能防止租牌或派遣.
6月8日下午藥聯會的凱道示威更是莫名其妙, 藥師法第11條修法和單軌制何干? 美日歐並無單軌制, 而是病人自由選擇調劑場所, 這就不是單軌制. 何況美日歐的醫師都具有完整自由的調劑權, 不限於緊急狀況或偏遠地區. 調劑權非藥師專有, 非其禁臠, 例如美國加州允許在一些狀況下由護士調劑. 美國允許獸醫師有調劑權.
台灣的醫師竟被藥事法102條第二項嚴重限縮其調劑權, 這是世界上絕無僅有. 世界上沒有單軌制, 台灣是最沒有資格實施所謂單軌制的國家, 因為其藥局不像美日歐的藥局那樣守法, 無醫師處方卻販賣處方藥, 自行看病給藥, 自行調劑過時違法的國民處方集給藥. 藥事法102條第二項有違憲違法之虞, 應予釋憲修法.

[auricle]

藥虱表示 : 我就是希望藥局人潮川流不息 , 我好幫民眾洗腦賣廣告藥 . (偽可愛)

[肉咖]

Re: 請繼續支持與聲援蘇清泉理事長的主張

[hjh]

不推不行
如果蘇立委被勸退就糟了

[reformer]

正解！
「單鬼制」的迷失，如羊署長所言：「包著糖衣的毒藥」！
喔，還有一事：據說藥師公會全聯會曾幫羊署長解決過難題？曾見於聯x報？

藥虱表示 : 我就是希望藥局人潮川流不息 , 我好幫民眾洗腦賣廣告藥 . (偽可愛)

[肉咖]

請大家抽空去facebook中的"玉山林"參加論戰.
藥師法第11條已被大法官判定違憲,今年 8月1日前若修法未完成就報廢. 藥聯會和其關連者推出不但不給最需要的原來藥師請假或突然離職時, 由別的藥師來報備支援, 而且把支援侷限在例外又非屬藥師專門的藥癮防治, 巡迴醫療等等. 衛生主管機關對於醫事人員報備支援早已建立線上申請系統, 行之有年. 對於申請支援時間及地點已設有嚴格的管控機制, 並有效管理藥師專業品質, 制度完善, 能防止租牌或派遣.
6月8日下午藥聯會的凱道示威更是莫名其妙, 藥師法第11條修法和單軌制何干? 美日歐並無單軌制, 而是病人自由選擇調劑場所, 這就不是單軌制. 何況美日歐的醫師都具有完整自由的調劑權, 不限於緊急狀況或偏遠地區. 調劑權非藥師專有, 非其禁臠, 例如美國加州允許在一些狀況下由護士調劑. 美國允許獸醫師有調劑權.
台灣的醫師竟被藥事法102條第二項嚴重限縮其調劑權, 這是世界上絕無僅有. 世界上沒有單軌制, 台灣是最沒有資格實施所謂單軌制的國家, 因為其藥局不像美日歐的藥局那樣守法, 無醫師處方卻販賣處方藥, 自行看病給藥, 自行調劑過時違法的國民處方集給藥. 藥事法102條第二項有違憲違法之虞, 應予釋憲修法.

[reformer]

正解！
立法院臨時會於今日召開
藥蝨公會全聯會今日卻號召各地方公會到車站「遍地開花」
訴求：開除蘇清泉立委黨籍。
所以，請注意"hjh"回應的小紅字，不要再沉默了，這是等了二十年的明燈！

不推不行
如果蘇立委被勸退就糟了

[咖大]

只支持蘇理事長與X師公會對抗的行為

至於他殘殺自己人的行為與

誓死對抗到底

[gary]

支持蘇清泉理事長

[yangzetyj]

理事長
我是每次質疑您為何不表態贊成推動公會直選的死硬派
醫界內反對派

但是我必須要說
對民眾 醫療發展長遠有意義的事
阻力越大
我越挺您
勇敢向前走
這個時間
絕對團結
您說一句話
我一定跟著走

[壞人卡]

正解！
立法院臨時會於今日召開
藥蝨公會全聯會今日卻號召各地方公會到車站「遍地開花」
訴求：開除蘇清泉立委黨籍。
所以，請注意"hjh"回應的小紅字，不要再沉默了，這是等了二十年的明燈！

不推不行
如果蘇立委被勸退就糟了

[李誠民]

“那請問藥師公會全聯會理事長是從事甚麼行業？有沒有從事為病人調劑服務經驗？有沒有利益迴避問題？

光用口號，不足以領導藥師公會全聯會！『任由商人兼藥師為所欲為，令人憤怒”----他就是商人, 代表藥廠利益,遊說立委與官員,一點都不奇怪(在台灣沒有遊說法案?!)

“只支持蘇理事長與X師公會對抗的行為

至於他殘殺自己人的行為與

誓死對抗到底”---咖大先生
台灣因為沒有像美國的遊說法案(Lobby Act;1946年);所以專業團體與利益團體, 往往無法分辨!! 台灣有牙醫師與中藥業的立院遊說案(?!)被判刑!!
醫師本於專業與基本信仰--WHA醫師倫理規範:Patient, Social, Colleague; 只有被抹黑,扭曲; 而無法在立院辯解,尤其是醫師全聯會理事長也只是政治考量; 卻忘了教育民眾(Social)的責任,因為沒必要成為社會箭靶!!?(更忽略了社會責任;請Newshine先生指證!!.......)
下篇文章是本期BMJ文章,探討美國的醫療產業的遊說狀況:((美國眾院龍頭—共和黨大輸給更保守的茶黨參選素人…..!!)
The lobby problem: it’s in your own hands
BMJ 2014; 348 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g135 (Published 10 January 2014)
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g135
Across all parts of the ensuing debate there was a recurrent regret that commercial interests rule, and repeatedly the panellists名嘴 referred to the power of lobbyists in Washington, DC.----透過所有團體的接踵爭辯, 對商業規則的反覆懊悔,再次美國華盛頓特區許多名嘴的遊說者(lobbyists)權利.
Speaking about the difficulty of decreasing national healthcare costs, Leonard Saltz, chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, bemoaned the sway that big pharma held over government: “The drug lobby is the most aggressively funded lobby on Capitol Hill—it dwarfs萎縮the defence industry.”
His concerns were echoed by a second panellist who claimed that one firm was employing 72 lobbyists to sway搖擺the decisions of the federal government.
Both claims are true and the impact demands serious consideration. But in the ensuing days the BMJ published this data briefing looking at federal lobbying costs (doi:10.1136/bmj.f7366), and it portrays a scene in which doctors are far from absent.

How big is the US healthcare lobby?
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7366 (Published 12 December 2013)
Edward Davies (US news and features editor, BMJ )looks at the size and scope of federal lobbying for healthcare companies in the United States
The size of lobby spending in all industries has grown steadily since the turn of the century, from $1.56bn (£0.95bn; €1.1bn) in 2000 to $3.55bn in 2010. In the past two years it has dipped slightly to $3.31bn in 2012 and though the figures are smaller, the trends are similar in health lobbying in isolation. Last year the total spend on health lobbying was just under $0.5bn
Federal lobbying in the US is a big business with a long history and a lot of mistrust. The first serious attempts to shine a light into the practice came about about 70 years ago under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, passed by Congress in 1946…….
………….
Declared spending
Under the health banner there were 2991 reported lobbyists working on behalf of 1436 clients from five different healthcare subsets……..
Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and other health related products are by some distance the largest spenders on lobbying and the top 10 spenders in the sector will be well known to most people working in healthcare………
The lobbying tends to be done either by Washington based employees of the companies or by professional lobbying firms, often staffed by lawyers, to work on specific different campaigns and contracts. For example, roughly a quarter of Pfizer Inc’s lobbying spend in 2012 was on contracts with a dozen or so lobbying firms, with the contracts varying in value from $80 000 to $400 000

Professional organizations
Whereas the spend from professional organizations is generally less than their pharmaceutical counterparts, many of them spend millions on lobbying activities, and the American Medical Association, with a spend of $16.5m invests more on lobbying the federal government than any single drug company in the world.
Although most of the figures for the top lobbying professional organizations are considerably less than those of their commercial counterparts, they still count their outlay in the millions with the Affordable Care Act being by far the biggest subject of lobbying over the past few years.⇓
Health professionals are also heavily involved in specific political campaigns donating to various different candidates for both Congress and president.
Organizations for health professionals were the fifth largest spenders on political campaigns during the 2012 election cycle. The industry contributed nearly $152.3m in the last election—a considerable leap from the $102m it gave during the 2008 election cycle.
……………..
“Other key 2012 election contributors within the industry included the Cooperative of American Physicians, the American Dental Association, and the American Medical Association. The top recipient of health professional contributions was Grand Old Party presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who received nearly $13m, followed by President Barack Obama, who received nearly $11m. The industry favored Republicans over Democrats in contributions as it has in the past—57% of contributions went to Republicans whereas 43% went to Democrats.”

The hidden industry
These figures, however, give a far from complete picture of all activity with much lobbying and spending happening outside the parameters of that which must be declared. The declared spend tends to be around the employment of lobbyists, but small amounts and less direct spending do not need to be declared. For an example of the latter, in 2010, when lobbying in general was at its peak, the American College of Surgeons declared lobbying spend of $173 896. But in the same year it opened its new base in Washington, DC, on Capitol Hill costing tens of millions of dollars, explicitly to better serve lobbying activities.
“Located on one of the last and best development parcels on Capitol Hill, the new building will serve as the location for the College’s Division of Advocacy and Health Policy,” said the press release.2 “Previously based in Georgetown, the ACS [American College of Surgeons] Division of Advocacy and Health Policy staff work to promote public policy initiatives of importance to surgeons and their patients.
“This building is a powerful statement that the College is very serious about working with policymakers and other health care leaders to identify solutions to improve and expand access to quality, culturally competent health care,” said ACS executive director David B Hoyt. “We’re fortunate to have a new, ideally situated facility in which to continue carrying out that goal.”