|
KMID : 1234820190200030143
|
|
Korean Society of Law and Medicine
2019 Volume.20 No. 3 p.143 ~ p.174
|
|
|
Concerning the Constitution Court's constitutional decision and the direction of supplemental legislation concerning Article 33 paragraph 8 of the Medical Service Act-With a focus on legitimacy of a system that prohibits multiple opening of medical instituion, in the content of 2014Hun-Ba212, August 29, 2019, 2014Hun-Ga15, 2015Hun-Ma561, 2016Hun-Ba21(amalgamation), Constitutional Court of Korea-
|
|
Kim Joon-Rae
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
Our Constitution obliges the state to protect the health of the people, and the Medical Law, which embodied Constitution, sets out in detail the matters related to open the medical institution, and one of them is to prohibit the operation of multiple medical institutions. By the way, virtually multiple medical institutions could be opened and operated because the Supreme Court had interpreted that several medical institutions could be opened if medical activities were not performed directly at the additional medical institution which was opened under the another doctor's license. However, some health care providers opened the several medical institutions with another doctor's license for the purpose of the maximization of profit, and did illegal medical cares like the unfair luring of patients, over-treatment, and commission treatment. Also, realistic problems such as the infringed health rights have arisen. Accordingly, lawmakers had come to amend the Medical Law to readjust the system of opening for medical institution so that medical personnel could not open or operate more than one medical institution for any reason. For this reason, the Constitutional Court recently declared a constitutional decision through a long period of in-depth deliberation because the constitutional petition and the adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes had been filed on whether Article 33 paragraph 8 of the revised medical law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court acknowledged the “justice of purpose” in view of the importance of public medical institutions, of the prevention from seduction of for-profit patients and from over-treatment ,and of the fact that health care should not be the object of commercial transactions. Given the risk that medical personnel might be subject to outside capital, the concern that the holder of the medical institution’s opening certificate and the actual operator may be separated, the principle that the human body and life should not be just a means, and the current system’s inability to identify over-treatment, it also acknowledged the ‘minimum infringement’. Furthermore, The Constitutional Court judged it is constitutional in compliance with the principle of restricting fundamental rights, such as ‘balance of legal interests’. In this regard, legislative complements are needed in order to effectively prevent the for-profit management and the over-treatment the Constitutional Court is concerned about. In this regard, consumer groups actively support the need for legislation, and health care providers groups also agree on the need for legislation. Therefore, the legislators should respect the recent Constitutional Court’s decision and in the near future complete the complementary legislation to reflect the people’s interests.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
The restriction on opening a multiple medical institution, The restriction on opening a double medical institution, the law of one institution per one person, The restriction on opening a medical institution, a breach of opening standards, partnership hospital, Constitutional Court of Korea
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|