대만의 미용의학 규제에 대한 고찰

Abstract

Aesthetic plastic surgery is the same as general medical practice in terms of invasiveness into and risk to the human body and thus can be considered a type of medical practice. However, aesthetic plastic surgery has no therapeutic purposes (that is, saving life) or medical adaptability, and its nature of urgency and emergency is not acknowledged. In particular, its strong nature of profitability has raised the necessity of correcting the conventional view in which aesthetic plastic surgery is treated as a type of medical practice. In Taiwan, it is widely recognized that the main purpose of cosmetic medicine, corresponding to aesthetic plastic surgery, is to satisfy subjective aesthetic expectations for one’s appearance and that cosmetic medicine can be viewed as a type of service due to its strong nature of profitability and commercialization, which leads to strengthened obligation to explain. In addition, the Taiwanese government recognizes that the main causes of disputes relating to cosmetic medicine are the lack of explanation for risks and difficulty in obtaining information on details of the service as well as qualifications/ experiences of service providers. Thus, it has endeavored to promote a quality certification system for cosmetic medicine, training for cosmetic medicine providers, regulation of advertisements, and the right to know of service recipients. Particularly, one of the main issues of Taiwan's cosmetic medicine is whether or not to apply the Consumer Protection Act, which imposes liability without fault on a business operator in the event of adverse consequences of the surgery. Judicial precedents acknowledge the specificity of cosmetic medicine but suggest that application of the Law may encourage defensive practice among surgeons, resulting in the lack of damage relief with accurate understanding of the nature of plastic surgery. In Korea too, a number of precedents have implied that the purpose of aesthetic plastic surgery is for personal aesthetic satisfaction and that urgency and emergency of plastic surgery are not recognized, and therefore, when considering the cases of Taiwan, two institutional measures can be discussed for improvement. The first measure relates to conclusion of a subcontract for aesthetic plastic surgery. Considering the nature of plastic