[Takryucheongron] When Wrong Prescriptions Are Given Over the Phone, Safety Is Actually Threatened

How Should We View Remote Medical Care?

Bae Jin-kyo, Floor Leader of the Justice Party

The most important aspect of all health and medical policies implemented by the government is the life and safety of the people. The same standard must be applied to the introduction of new systems such as non-face-to-face (untact) medical treatment, commonly referred to as telemedicine.

In February, when the COVID-19 pandemic was spreading rapidly, the government urgently took measures to allow prescriptions through non-face-to-face telephone consultations for suspected patients and existing chronic patients, out of concern for the safety of medical staff and infection within medical institutions. This was a temporary and unavoidable measure to protect the lives of the people against the new infectious disease COVID-19. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, since the system was implemented in February, a total of 262,121 cases of non-face-to-face medical treatment through telephone consultations have been conducted at 3,853 medical institutions nationwide. The question is whether it can truly be said that the patient's condition was accurately assessed and appropriate prescriptions were given through non-face-to-face medical treatment by phone.

Video-based remote medical treatment between medical professionals is already permitted under the current Medical Service Act under the name of "telemedicine." For example, a resident living in Jeonnam who underwent surgery at a tertiary hospital in Seoul can visit another medical institution in Jeonnam equipped with a telemedicine system for additional treatment. Another example is a nurse visiting a mobility-impaired patient living in a remote area, transmitting the patient's condition via video to a doctor at a hospital, and receiving necessary prescriptions. The core of such telemedicine is that medical staff are present on-site to examine the patient, exchange opinions through video with other medical professionals, and then provide the necessary prescriptions accordingly.

In telemedicine conducted in this way, misdiagnosis of patients can be minimized. Even if it occurs, it is possible to clearly determine responsibility. However, in the case of non-face-to-face treatment by phone, the patient must explain their condition themselves over the phone, and the doctor relies solely on the patient's explanation to prescribe treatment. What happens if the patient fails to properly describe their condition and an incorrect prescription is given? If a medical accident occurs due to a wrong prescription, can the doctor be held responsible? While assigning responsibility after the fact is problematic, above all, the threat to the patient's life and safety must be addressed. For these reasons, telemedicine between patients and doctors has been limited to pilot projects in distant fishing vessels and remote military units.

If the government's claim is that this is to respond to infectious diseases, the operation could be limited to the period of an outbreak. So why expand it to normal times? The government argues for introducing telemedicine to elderly, patients, and disabled people who have difficulty moving or live far away, even if they are not infected. But do the elderly and disabled need telemedicine electronic devices? Or is there a need for universal medical service provision through house calls, visiting health care, a primary care system, or expansion of basic public health care?

I agree that new countermeasures are needed for emerging infectious diseases that will continue to arise in the future. Also, the various medical disparities between the metropolitan area and provinces must be addressed. Nevertheless, the government knows well why telemedicine has remained only a pilot project for over 10 years and why the health care sector, including civil society, has opposed its introduction. The government's push to introduce the system, claiming that non-face-to-face treatment is not telemedicine and that it is an unavoidable choice for infectious disease response, should be examined as a form of fear marketing. The standard for all policy changes in the health and medical field is the "life and safety of the people." There is no inevitability that justifies compromising that.

Jinkyo Bae, Floor Leader of the Justice Party

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.