Dollars for Doctors: Are Pharmaceutical Companies Paying Your Doctors?

本篇同樣關於醫藥，這片影片的好處是有The New York Times的文章當資料來源，比較好準備專有名詞。紐約時報文章來源

GlaxoSmithKline plc 葛蘭素史克股份有限公司
kick back 把對方做的事情以相同方式回報
FDA 美國食品藥物管理局
proscribe 禁止
host problem 主機問題

本段影片再講醫生和藥廠之間的關係，有些醫生會拿藥廠的錢，或是藥廠直接送錢給醫生，請他們「推薦」特定藥廠、或特定藥品給患者，從中賺取利潤。另外，也有些做法是藥廠自己寫了關於這項藥品的實驗記錄和結果，投稿到醫學期刊，但是挂名卻不是藥廠，而是和他們有利益關係的醫生。這個過程患者們清不清楚、該不該被透明化、做這些事到底會對用藥、醫療有正面影響還是負面影響，本節目請了各式各樣不同領域的人來討論本問題，包括律師、醫療教育人士...等等。

The video is about the cooperation between pharmaceutical companies and doctors. Some doctors would take money from sales, and recommend specific drugs from specific companies to patients. Besides, some pharmaceutical companies would write articles for periodicals with doctors' names. Should patients know the process, should this kind of cooperation be transparent, and this process's pros and cons to the therapy are issues that discussed in the video.

因為有很多人的發言，所以在口譯時我自己說中文的速度也變來變去，最快的是大約在第八分鐘附近，那位小姐有加速趨勢，但這時我反而變慢了，因為要聽懂說什麼更費勁，結果口譯出來的變好少！但是後來主持人和其他兩位來賓都不算快，而且我覺得一旦抓到中心討論的點就會比較好翻，也可能是先看了The New York Times 有比較懂，大抵而言，我覺得翻得比之前有篇醫藥印度腔好跟口音、先看過報導有關。

Many guests were invited in the TV programme, their speaking speed differs and then influenced my delivering peed. A young lady that appeared around 8: 00 in the video might be the fastest one. However, my delivering speed was not very fast because I had to pay attention to understand her context. Therefore, I only did maybe 50 percentage of her part. But generally speaking, the host and guests were not too fast to catch. Also, it seems that once the core of the video is caught, it would not be too difficult to predict (or maybe to guess, to me) what will be talked about in the next part. Maybe it has something to do with the report from The New York Times, maybe it has something to do with the accent (unlike the previous one with Indian accent).