The New Mental Health and Welfare Law in Korea: Issues with Additional Diagnosis by External Psychiatrist and the Role of Admission Review Committee.
10.4306/jknpa.2017.56.4.146
- Author:
Je Sik YOON
1
;
Joon Ho AHN
;
Woon YOON
;
Chang Yoon KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. amc.cykim@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Mental Health Law;
Additional diagnosis;
Admission Review Committee;
External institution;
Mental Health and Welfare Law
- MeSH:
Advisory Committees*;
Diagnosis*;
Hospitals, Private;
Hospitals, Public;
Human Rights;
Humans;
Jurisprudence*;
Korea*;
Mental Health*;
Methods;
Psychiatry*;
Referral and Consultation;
Unnecessary Procedures
- From:Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association
2017;56(4):146-153
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The new Mental Health and Welfare Law in Korea was revised to require additional diagnosis by a psychiatrist from another public or designated hospital for involuntary admission beyond 2 weeks. In addition, it features the newly established Admission Review Committee for better protection of human rights. The provision of the additional diagnosis by an external psychiatrist resulted from misinformation about the distinction between the second opinion for medical assessment and the review of admission by independent authorities. An additional diagnosis is not required by an external doctor since it is not for review of adequacy of admission but just for second opinion for better medical assessment. Given the limited number of qualified public hospital psychiatrists, additional diagnosis by external psychiatrists does not seem practical unless private hospital doctors are required to visit neighboring hospitals. The current method of cross checking between neighboring doctors is not in accordance with the principles that review should be done by independent authorities. The Admission Review Committee also does not seem to serve the purpose since the role of the Committee is limited to document review, while the proper role of the Committee is left to individual doctors. Admission review should be performed through a thorough interview with the patient by a judicial (or quasi-judicial) authority. Law revision is urgently needed to ensure proper judicial (or quasi-judicial) review of admission, and to streamline unnecessary procedures such as the additional diagnosis by external doctors.
