• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.47-87
• /
• 2022

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, non-face-to-face treatment was temporarily permitted. A lot of consensus has been formed on the need to continuous non-face-to-face treatment. However, the current 「Medical Service Act」 only permits telemedicine between doctors and medical personnel. On the other hand, as a result of legal interpretation, there is an opinion that non-face-to-face treatment is allowed. But considering the overall legal system, non-face-to-face treatment is not allowed. Nevertheless, we have to consider the reality such as the development of science and technology and the outbreak of infectious diseases. Therefore, it is not advisable to allow face-to-face treatment only. Ultimately, it is necessary to find ways to ensure that non-foce-to-face treatment can be performed in a safe and effective manner. And it should be institutionalized. This is strategically necessary and important. Therefore, we must look over ahead legal issues to be discussed. First of all, the scope, the target disease and the subject of implement have to be clear. Also, structurally, the standards of facilities and equipment must be prepared for non-face-to-face treatment to be implemented. Functionally, communication and information exchange between doctors and patients should be well conducted. In addition, the information protection management system that occurs in the process of non-face-to-face treatment should be materialized. Lastly, the issue of responsibility and cost of non-face-to-face treatment should be decided in detail. When these problems materialize, it can be expected that a safe non-face-to-face treatment environment will be established.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.131-160
• /
• 2023

An amendment to Medical Law allowing permanent face-to-face treatment has been proposed in the 21st National Assembly, with five different bills introduced. However, each proposed amendment focuses on different aspects, and the issue is currently in a state of 'ongoing review' due to factors such as opposition from the medical profession and political considerations. However, from the perspective that the introduction of non-face-to-face treatment should be institutionalized and legislated prioritizing patient safety, certain directions are proposed. These include focusing on returning patients as the primary target, chronic diseases as the focal conditions, outpatient medical institutions as the implementing agencies, restricting non-face-to-face means primarily to video systems, and legally exempting healthcare professionals from responsibility for incidents beyond their control. The proposed directions also emphasize establishing the right to demand face-to-face treatment. It is suggested to legislate initial standards that ensure a minimum level of safety and gradually expand the scope of non-face-to-face treatment through future research, evaluation, and similar step-by-step approaches.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.303-311
• /
• 2022

Recently the telemedicine platform firms which have been temporarily permitted since COVID-19 outbreak have increasingly provided online prescription drugs delivery, causing concerns among incumbent providers of medicine, some of whom began to take aggressive actions again them. In this study, using game theoretic market entry - deterrence model, we show that although the incumbent medicine provider can effectively deter entry by the telemedicine platform firms by its preemptive action, accommodation could be a optimal action when telemedicine platform firms already have penetrated the market with their being permitted to do business due to the COVID-19. However, for the incumbent to cooperate for the successful change in the retail market for medicines, policies like placing a ceiling on the maximum number of taking prescriptions by the pharmacists a day in the telemedince platform network, providing favorable exposure of community pharmacists on the telemedicine platform user interface, and allowing community pharmacies to participate as shareholders of the telemedicine platform firms in its initial public opening of capital, are suggested.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.149-192
• /
• 2024

People with mental illness are generally either unaware of their illness or unwilling to voluntarily seek treatment, which makes treatment difficult and the pain mainly passed on to their families. Accordingly, non-face-to-face treatment, in which the patient is diagnosed by interviews with the family and unannounced medication, in which medication is secretly administered through the family, can be performed, and this has been considered a necessary evil. Even considering realistic aspects such as the special nature of mental health care and families' suffer, not-informed treatment without consent violates not only medical laws, but also human rights of mentally ill patients. Above all, if the patient finds out about this late, the trust between the patient, family, and doctor is completely broken, and a treatment is absolutely refused. Japan's Chiba decision, which presents exceptional conditions for allowance might be a solution. However, it would not be a right solution, considering that it could lead to long-term unannounced medication and completely cut off treatment through therapeutic dialogue. Ultimately, it need to approach this problem and seek alternatives through restoration of therapeutic dialogue.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.591-598
• /
• 2020

Since COVID-19's 1st pandemic came in February 2020, the demand for telemedicine grew greatly that in most countries the deregulation for telemedicine policy have been implemented in more countries. Also in Korea, with the name of 'Non-face-to-face Treatment' telemedicine began to be approved. Telemedicine having strength in chronic disease management has been effective in more and more specialties along with the recent development of ICT that it is expected to contribute to the improvement of the quality of healthcare service and creation of new treatment model. On the contrary it may also exacerbate the distortion in the hospital healthcare service industry in Korea, which is the excessive tipping toward large hospitals. So the dual promotion policy approach in which the settlement of family doctors system extensively utilizing telemedicine for chronic disease management and the support for tertiary hospitals and hospitals focusing on treating foreign patients to provide quality service using telemedicine technology are pursued simultaneously are recommended.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.57-90
• /
• 2021

Telehealth has been a hotly debated health policy issue in South Korea, mostly because the medical community - especially primary care practitioners - have strongly opposed it. As a result, telehealth has remained forbidden under law. However, the temporary permission of telehealth in Korea, as well as its exploding use in other countries, all in response to COVID-19, is re-igniting the discussion on telehealth in Korea. This article explores general legal issues that may arise if and when telehealth is fully implemented in Korea. The article's analysis shows that legislative changes are necessary to allow reimbursement of telehealth as well as remote purchase of medicine. The article also advocates introducing new evidentiary rules to curtail covert recording of telehealth sessions. On the other hand, additional legislation is probably not necessary to address the medical liability of physicians practicing telehealth or to adress much-discussed privacy issues. The existing laws in those domains are already robust enough to operate without much difficulty in the context of telehealth too.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.18 no.12
• /
• pp.445-457
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to analyze various issues that may arise from the recent deregulation of telemedicine implemented by the government, propose initiative preparations for the implementation of telemedicine policies, and suggest implications for the basic conditions and direction of the deregulation of telemedicine. Recently, deregulation policy cases in telemedicine include that designation of a special zone for regulatory freedom in Gangwon Province, allowing physician-patient telemedicine and telephone counseling and prescription cases in the COVID-19 crisis. There are four main issues that could arise with the deregulation of telemedicine: safety, effectiveness, differences in access to health care and the economic industry, and legal responsibility. As a initiative preparation, this study proposed a pilot project for telemedicine and enhanced support for face-to-face care complementary tools, vitalizing remote co-operation, policy model that do not disrupt the medical delivery system, and legal maintenance. In conclusion, as a suggestion of basic premise and direction in the implementation of telemedicine deregulation, the implementation of initiative measures to address issues concerning telemedicine, the review and regulation of conditions to be considered in the implementation of telemedicine, and the establishment of a close communication and cooperative sturcture with medical providers.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.119-145
• /
• 2023

The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act stipulates medication counseling as an obligatory requirement in the case of preparation of medicine. In fact, there are many cases where pharmacists only tell patients the dose and time and do not properly guide them on taking medications. However, in light of the current situation where non-face-to-face treatment is being attempted, there is a high possibility of drug-taking accidents due to insufficient medication guidance. In addition, as an aging society progresses, the need for explanations on pharmaceuticals is increasing. If a pharmacist causes damage to a patient by failing to give appropriate medication guidance, the patient can claim compensation for damages. In addition, if a drug accident occurs due to a conflict between the pharmacist's duty to guide medication and the doctor's duty to explain, a joint tort is established between the pharmacist and the doctor. Nevertheless, there are cases in which only doctors are judged to bear the tort liability. However, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act includes providing information for the selection of over-the-counter drugs in the medication guidance as part of the medication guidance obligation. Therefore, in order to reconsider the importance of the medication-taking guidance duty, it is necessary to define the medicationaking information provision method and the medication-taking guidance duty as separate concepts. In addition, it is necessary to amend related regulations centered on patients so that medication guidance, such as side effects of medicines and interactions with concomitant medications, can be made in detail.