Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.13066/kspm.2018.13.2.147

A Teleological Interpretation of a Doctor's "Guidance" for Physical Therapist  

Lee, Ju-Il (Dept. of Law in Division of Public Service, College of Humanities and Social Science, Silla University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Physical Medicine / v.13, no.2, 2018 , pp. 147-156 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE: The law pertaining to medical service technologists does not discuss the scope and limits of doctors' guidelines. My paper aims to discuss these topics. METHODS: This study was based on a review of literature and an analysis of judicial precedents. RESULTS: Physical therapists have often noted the need for independent practitioners in their articles on health care. Their continued discussions on professional and educational differences have centered round this issue, but their ideas have not been accepted. Practitioners have continued to interpret doctors' guidelines in hospitals without discussing their scope. However, the Supreme Court presented a meaningful decision outlining the conceptual limits and the scope of medical practice. The court suggested, basing its interpretation in the goal of clarifying the concept of medical activities smoothly, was to follow a specific judgment on the levels of education, testing, and professionalism. CONCLUSION: The role of physical therapists is expanding in this country, in order to meet the needs of the ultra-aged society. Education is already responding to rising training needs. By dividing the doctors' guidelines into indirect and direct types, if there's no medical risk near or around the health center or hospital, it is a good idea to allow the management of physical therapy partially, while understanding the scope and limitations of these guidelines clearly. A teleological interpretation of the law is especially relevant, and can be implemented immediately by the authoritative interpretation on part of the health authorities without any legal amendments.
Keywords
Legal-discussion; Medical service technologists; Physical therapist; Teleological interpretation of the law; The constitutional court;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Administrative Procedures Act Article 2. http://www.law.go.kr (2018. 04. 23).
2 Byun HC. New introduction to Law. Seoul: Samwoosa. 2006.
3 Ha TI. Unlicensed practice of medicine on the validity of the penalty. Law Review. 2010;51(3):187-220.
4 Han HW. New introduction to Law. Seoul: Samyoungsa. 2013.
5 Hong WP, Kim EG, Rhee JE, et al. Differences in awareness of between Emergency Medical Technician and Medical Doctor about situation requiring direct medical control. Conference proceeding of The Korean Society of emergency Medicine. 2013;2:275-6.
6 Jung SJ. The new principle of Law. Seoul: Hyungseul. 2003.
7 Lee IY. The 19th symposium: A study on the modern significance and urgent problem for the practice of medicine. Journal of Law and Politics research. 2007;7(1):27-63.
8 Lee JW, Park EG. A study on the existing law and direction for revision in the physical therapist. Law Review. 2010;38:393-412.
9 Lee SD. Article: Legal sociological construction of the concept of medicine. Yeungnam Law Journal. 2008;27: 101-28.
10 Lee SM. The concept and practice of Administrative Guidance. Administrative Law journal. 2014;38:49-81.
11 Lee YG, Jeong SH, Park BS. A study on doctor's guidance of Medical Service Technologist. Research report of Korean Institute of Hospital Management. 2010.
12 The Constitutional Court Decision 2009heonma736 decided December 18, 2009.
13 Sonn JC. The new principle of Law. Seoul: Parkyoungsa. 2004.
14 The Law Research Institute Yeungnam University. Introduction to Law. Seoul: Parkyoungsa. 2005.
15 The Constitutional Court Decision 2003heonba86 decided May 26, 2005.
16 The Constitutional Court Decision 2011heonma552 decided May 29, 2014.
17 The Supreme Court Decision 72do243 decided March 28, 1972.
18 The Supreme Court Decision 74do1114 decided November 28, 1974.
19 The Supreme Court Decision 95do36466 decided April 23, 1998.
20 The Supreme Court Decision 2002do2014 decided September 23, 2002.
21 Moon SJ, Lee KH, Won SA. A study on the theory of nurse liability. Korean Journal of Medicine and Law. 2004;12(1):21-38.
22 The Supreme Court Decision 2004do3405 decided October 23, 2002.
23 The Supreme Court Decision 2013do850 decided July 21, 2016.