|
KMID : 1234820200210030003
|
|
Korean Society of Law and Medicine
2020 Volume.21 No. 3 p.3 ~ p.33
|
|
|
The Legitimacy and the limitation of Telemedicine
|
|
Hyun Doo-Youn
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Telemedicine can be defined as "medical activities performed remotely by medical personnel using information and communication technology." So far, many scholars in Korea have understood that only telemedicine between medical personnel is allowed and telemedicine between medical personnel and patients is prohibited based on Article 34 of Medical Service Act. However, Article 34 is only a restriction on the performing place of medical profession, not a prohibition on telemedicine itself. And, there are no regulations prohibiting telemedicine under the korean medical law. So, it is difficult to say that telemedicine is generally prohibited under the korean medical law, apart from the health insurance medical treatment benefit standards.
However, there is controversy in interpretation regarding the meaning of “direct diagnosis” in Articles 17 and 17-2 of Medical Service Act. The Constitutional Court of Korea interpreted this as "face-to-face diagnosis", while the Supreme Court of Korea interpreted it as "self diagnosis". In light of the dictionary meaning of ’direct’ and the interpretation of related medical law regulations, I think the Supreme Court’s interpretation is valid. Although "direct diagnosis" does not mean "face-to-face diagnosis", the concept of "diagnosis" implies "principle of face-to-face diagnosis". In addition, "non-face-to-face diagnosis" are only allowed to supplement "face-to-face diagnosis", so the problems caused by "non-face-to-face diagnosis" can be fully overcome. In the end, the limit of telemedicine is how faithful the diagnosis was.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Telemedicine, Medical Service Act, Medical Service, Diagnosis, Direct Diagnosis, Face-to-face Diagnosis, Self Diagnosis
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|