论文部分内容阅读
胡麻之名,所付实物在历史上就含混不清,历代都发生过争执。五十年代有人对脂麻的品种进行了调查研究,六十年代曾有人提出“胡麻”混用的问题,但没有得到彻底的澄清。《药典》一九七七年版也没有规定“胡麻”应付何药,所以至今仍处于混乱状态。特别是基层医疗单位更是如此,调配处方时,有的付给黑脂麻,有的付给亚麻子,有的付给茺蔚子,还有的甚至付给苣胜子等等,做法不一,常发生争论。本文想就此谈一点个人看法,与同道讨论,以正本清源。
In the name of flax, the actual objects paid are ambiguous in history and disputes have occurred throughout history. In the 1950s, some people investigated the varieties of fat and hemp, and in the 1960s, the issue of mixed use of “flax” was raised, but it has not been thoroughly clarified. The 1987 edition of the Pharmacopoeia also did not provide for “flax” to deal with any drug, so it is still in a state of confusion. This is especially the case for basic medical units. When prescriptions are allocated, some are paid for black fat, some are paid for flax, some are paid for Yan Weizi, and others are even given a reward for noxiousness. First, there is often an argument. This article would like to talk about this point of personal views, discuss with fellow practitioners, and use the original source.