• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.99-137
• /
• 2018

Under the Korean law, there are two routes of involuntary civil commitment of the mentally-ill: involuntary commitment process under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and the guardian's commitment backed up by family court approval under article 947-2 (2) of the Civil Code. Despite of the recent fundamental revision of MHA in 2016, the Korean involuntary commitment law has still serious flaws, especially the lack of due process like prior notice, hearing, and independent guardian ad litem for the mentally-ill, which has been pointed out also by the Korean Constitutional Court. Thus, a re-revision is inevitable, and this time, we should proceed to rebuild the underlying structure of involuntary commitment. In this regard, it is crucial to eliminate the old-fashioned and unjustifiable burden as well as power of the so-called responsible person to protect the mentally-ill and to readjust the causes and standings to petition of the various types of involuntary commitment process. Also it is necessary to repeal involuntary commitment by guardian under the Civil Code, article 947-2 (2), which can no longer harmonize with modern involuntary commitment system.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.155-206
• /
• 2023

When a person with diminished mental capacity refuses necessary medical care, normative judgments about when paternalistic intervention can be justified come into question. A typical example is involuntary hospitalization for people with mental disabilities, traditionally governed by mental health law. However, Korean civil law reform in 2011 introduced a new form of involuntary hospitalization through guardianship legislation, leading to a dualized system to involuntary hospitalization. Consequently, a conflict has arisen between the 'best interest and surrogate decision-making' paradigm of civil law and the 'social defense and preventive detention' paradigm of mental health law. Many countries have criticized this dualized system as not only inefficient but also unfair. Moreover, the requirement for the presence of 'mental illness' for involuntary hospitalization under mental health law has faced criticism for unfairly discriminating against people with mental disabilities. In response, attempts have been made to integrate guardianship legislation and mental health law based on mental capacity. This study examines the legislative process and framework of the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which reorganized the mental health care system by fusing guardianship legislation with mental health law based on mental capacity. By analyzing the case of Northern Ireland, which has grappled with conflicts between guardianship legislation and mental health law since the 1990s and recently proposed mental capacity as a single, non-discriminatory standard, we aimed to offer insights for the Korean guardianship and mental health systems.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.209-279
• /
• 2016

The Korean Mental Health Act was amended 2016 overall. This paper examines and evaluates the old Korean Mental Health Act since 1995 and the new Korean Mental Health Promotion Act 2016 from the Perspective of Human Rights and Inclusion of Persons with Psychosocial Disabilities. The persons with mental disabilities was separated and ruled out from society by the enactment of the Mental Health Act in 1995 and five times amendment. That has been justified and institutionally supported by medical viewpoint. The medical approach which reconsider the persons with mental disabilities as patients conceal that the aims of the involuntary admission in Mental Hospital are protection of society and the relief of the family member's duty of support for person with mental disabilities. This is institutionally supported in the 1995 Korean Mental Health Act by involuntary admission through the consent of family members as protectors. According to the old Act, the family members as protectors are authorized to consent to involuntary admission of persons with mental disabilities. Also, the psychiatrist that diagnoses the person with mental disabilities and evaluates the need for treatment by admission is not impartial in this decision. Family members as protectors may want to lighten their burden of support for the person with mental disabilities in their home by admitting them into a mental hospital, and the psychiatrist in the mental hospital can be improperly influenced by demand of hospital management. Additionally, Article 24 of the Korean Mental Health Act for the Involuntary Admission by the Consent of Family Members as Protector might violate personal liberty, as guaranteed in the Korean Constitution. The Mental Health Promotion Law was amended to reduce the scope of the persons with mental illness which are subject to forced hospitalization and to demand that a second diagnosis is made by another psychiatrist and screening by the committee concerning the legitimacy of admission in the process of the involuntary admission by the consent of family members as a method of protection. The amended Mental Health Promotion Law will contribute to reducing the number of the involuntary admissions and the inclusion of persons with mental disabilities. But if persons with mental disabilities are not providing some kind of service to the community, the amended Mental Health Promotion Law does not work for Inclusion of them.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.87-115
• /
• 2024

In Korea, exposure to stress has been accompanied by mental pain in the process of achieving many growth along with rapid development, various social problems, and the frequency of emergency hospitalization is increasing.. In the case of mentally ill patients, "unwanted hospitalization" is a problem, and police and 119 paramedics try to suppress the body of mentally ill patients, and many problems are exposed This is because the constituent requirements of the provisions of emergency hospitalization under the Mental Health and Welfare Act do not reflect reality, and each institution has a different position on one mentally ill person, and emergency hospitalization does not proceed smoothly or leads to friction between related organizations, and the safety of the mentally ill or others is not secured. Emergency hospitalization is defined as "a person who finds a person who is presumed to be mentally ill and is at high risk of harming his or her health or safety or others," and if the situation is so urgent that he or she cannot afford time to go through the hospitalization procedure to decide on his or her own hospitalization, he or she can request emergency hospitalization with the consent of a doctor and a police officer. In this case, 119 paramedics are escorted to a psychiatric institution. This provision of emergency hospitalization poses many problems in the process of transferring to psychiatric institutions. If a police officer or 119 paramedics in charge of practice use "physical force" during the emergency hospitalization process, side effects will inevitably occur, and professional negligence can be a problem. Specifically, when exercising physical force, the minimum necessary physical restraint based on laws and regulations and proportional principles is required, and the lack of the duty of care of 119 paramedics or police officers under the laws and regulations will eventually be resolved by applying other laws and regulations. Accordingly, it will be an opportunity for mentally ill patients to be transferred to psychiatric institutions in a safe environment by changing the subject of emergency hospitalization provisions under the Mental Health Welfare Act, defining and prescribing the use of physical protection guards as the enforcement regulations of the Mental Health Act, setting the duty of care for 119 paramedics and police officers, and creating an environment for transportation so that mentally ill patients can be treated safely.