동아시아 4개국의 비자의 입원 관련 정신보건법 비교
Comparison of Mental Health Act about Involuntary Admission among 4 East Asian Countries
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
Objectives The aim of this study was to explore trends associated with the amendment of The Mental Health Welfare Act by comparing involuntary admission processes in Asian countries. Methods We obtained copies of the Mental Health Acts for four East Asian countries – Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan (China). We then analyzed the contents of the acts including their definitions of mentally ill patients, the types of hospitalization, and the procedures for involuntary admission. Results The Japanese provision for involuntary admission was the prototype used for the Korean system prior to the total revision of the Korean system in 2016. Regardless, Korea and Japan still regard family members as pivotal in deciding on involuntary admission. Taiwan and Singapore acts are characterized by the involvement of government or government-designated medical practitioners, not caregivers, in the hospitalization process. In Taiwan, involuntary admission is decided by a judgment of a review committee and is a task of the government. In Singapore, the opinions of experts are considered when making the initial decision on involuntary hospitalization, whereas a judicial decision is essential for extension of that hospitalization. Conclusion Despite cultural and historical similarities, the systems of involuntary admission were considerably different across the countries. We observed a reduction in the role of family guardians and an increase in the use of more objective screening processes. All four countries were in the process of applying those recommendations from international organizations that were in accordance with their society/culture. There may be a need to partially amend The Mental Health Welfare Act in Korea in order to protect the human rights of psychiatric patients while maintaining a stable therapeutic environment.
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to explore trends associated with the amendment of The Mental Health Welfare Act by comparing involuntary admission processes in Asian countries. Methods We obtained copies of the Mental Health Acts for four East Asian countries – Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan (China). We then analyzed the contents of the acts including their definitions of mentally ill patients, the types of hospitalization, and the procedures for involuntary admission. Results The Japanese provision for involuntary admission was the prototype used for the Korean system prior to the total revision of the Korean system in 2016. Regardless, Korea and Japan still regard family members as pivotal in deciding on involuntary admission. Taiwan and Singapore acts are characterized by the involvement of government or government-designated medical practitioners, not caregivers, in the hospitalization process. In Taiwan, involuntary admission is decided by a judgment of a review committee and is a task of the government. In Singapore, the opinions of experts are considered when making the initial decision on involuntary hospitalization, whereas a judicial decision is essential for extension of that hospitalization. Conclusion Despite cultural and historical similarities, the systems of involuntary admission were considerably different across the countries. We observed a reduction in the role of family guardians and an increase in the use of more objective screening processes. All four countries were in the process of applying those recommendations from international organizations that were in accordance with their society/culture. There may be a need to partially amend The Mental Health Welfare Act in Korea in order to protect the human rights of psychiatric patients while maintaining a stable therapeutic environment.
참고문헌 (42)
- "Principles for the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care"[URL]
- "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"[URL]
- "Decision of the unconstitutionality appeal of Mental Health Act Article 24(1)"[URL]
- 김문근, "정신보건법 개정 담론에 근거한 정신건강증진 및 정신질환자 복지서비스 지원에 관한 법률 주요 쟁점 분석", 사회복지연구, 47(3), pp.85~111 (2016), 한국사회복지연구회[DOI]
- Shin KC, "Rebirth of Mental Health Act, the significance and the future", Monthly Welfare Trends, 214, pp.5~9 (2016)
- 신권철, "강제입원 위헌(헌법불합치)결정의 의미와 향후 과제", 서울법학, 24(4), pp.1~45 (2017), 서울시립대학교 법학연구소[DOI]
- Jeon JH, "Birth of Mental Health and Welfare Law", Monthly Welare Trends, 214, pp.10~15 (2016)
- 박종익, "역사적 관점에서 본 정신보건법 전부개정법률에 대한 검토", 신경정신의학, 56(1), pp.1~9 (2017), 대한신경정신의학회[DOI]
- Lee EW, "Measures for the deinstitutionalization and influx of mentally ill patients in communities by the revised Mental Health Act", Issue & Analysis, 279, pp.1~20 (2017)
- 윤제식, "정신건강복지법의 문제점과 개선방안 : 외부 기관 추가 전문의 진단 제도 및 입원적합성심사위원회의 역할을 중심으로", 신경정신의학, 56(4), pp.146~153 (2017), 대한신경정신의학회[DOI]
- "A statement of opinion for the revision of “Mental Health Promotion and Welfare Service Support”Act"[URL]
- 김혜수, "강제입원의 법적 기준에 대한 고찰 : 입원적합성 심사에참고할 해외 사례의 소개를 포함하여", 신경정신의학, 57(1), pp.43~51 (2018), 대한신경정신의학회[DOI]
- 정태호, "보호의무자에 의한 정신질환자 강제입원․치료제도의 위헌성 - 독일 연방헌법재판소의 관련 판례의 응용을 중심으로 -", 경희법학, 51(2), pp.121~160 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 양승엽, "정신질환자의 강제입원에 대한 사법적 심사 ― 프랑스 법제를 중심으로 ―", 서울법학, 25(2), pp.267~305 (2017), 서울시립대학교 법학연구소[DOI]
- 신수정, "이탈리아의 강제입원제도", 법학논집, 22(1), pp.119~142 (2017), 법학연구소
- "elaws.e-gov.go.jp"[URL]
- "lis.ly.gov.tw"[URL]
- "sso.agc.gov.sg"[URL]
- Improvement plan of hospitalization and discharge on Mental Health Act, "The University of Seoul Industry Cooperation Foundation", Ministry of Health and Welfare, ~ (2014)
- The review criteria and operation methods of hospitalization appropriateness review committee, "Shin KC", Ministry of Health and Welfare, 26~ (2018)
- "law.go.kr"[URL]
- 신권철, "정신질환자 개념의 규범적 고찰", 법조, 59(5), pp.35~76 (2010), 법조협회[DOI]
- Revision of the Mental Health and Welfare Act for the respect of human rights and deinstitutionalization, "Lee DJ", Research Institute for Healthcare Policy, Korean Medical Association, ~ (2018)
- "e-stat.go.jp"[URL]
- "mhlw.go.jp"[URL]
- "National Statistics Republic of China"[URL]
- "Official business trip report about Taiwanese mental health system"[URL]
- "singstat.gov.sg"[URL]
- Total annual numbers of admission and detention of 2018, "Institute of Mental Health", Institute of Mental Health, ~ (2019)
- "kosis.kr"[URL]
- Total annual number of Involuntary Admission of Korea, "National Center for Mental Health", National Center for Mental Health, ~ (2019)
- Seo DW, "Mental Health Policy and Law in Korea", Health and welfare policy forum, 123, pp.42~56 (2007)
- Shorter E, "A History of Psychiatry", pp.315~391 (2009), Bada Publishing Co
- Brennan TA, "Just doctoring: medical ethics in the liberal state" (1991), University of California Press
- Brown J, "The changing purpose of mental health law : from medicalism to legalism to new legalism", Int J Law Psychiatry, 47, pp.1~9 (2016)
- Shin KC, "The Elucidation of Mental Health and Welfare Act", pp.97~236 (2018), Bobmunsa
- Ko YB, "Dictionary of sociology" (2000), Research Institute of Society and Culture
- Roth M, "Psychiatry, human rights and the law" (2018), Hakjisa
- National Center for Mental Health, "The guidance of the process of hospitalization and discharge under the Mental Health and Welfare Act of Korea", National Center for Mental Health, ~ (2018)
- "Congressman Yoon IG proposed the amendment of the Mental Health and Welfare Act" (2019)[URL]
- "Non-guilty of the salaried psychiatrists by the supreme court" (2019)[URL]
- 박인환, "정신장애인의 인권과 지역사회통합의 관점에서 본 2016년 정신건강증진법의 평가와 과제", 의료법학, 17(1), pp.209~279 (2016), 대한의료법학회