Maintaining the Policy of “Separation of Dispensing Practice from Medical Practice” or Destroying It? — A Commentary on the J.Y. Interpretation No. 778
J.Y. Interpretation No. 778 recognizes that “in the case of urgent need of medical treatment services,” stipulated in Article 102, paragraph 2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, provides the legal basis for physicians’ right of dispensing under the separation of dispensing practice from medical practice policy. However, it declares Article 50 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act Enforcement Rules and the Letter of No. 1000017608 issued by Taiwan Food and Drug Administration in April 12th, 2011 unconstitutional because both of them additionally impose restrictions on the application of the foregoing requirement “in the case of urgent need of medical treatment services” beyond statutory scheme, and therefore violate the principle of Statutory Reservation (Gesetzesvorbehalt). After observing the legal framework for medical regulations as a whole (including the Physicians Act, Emergency Medical Services Act, etc.), this article finds that the majority’s concern about that those ordinances may cause public health protection loopholes does not exist. As a result, J.Y. Interpretation No. 778 may rather destroy the separation of dispensing practice from medical practice policy than maintain it.