[Reporter’s Notebook] Changes Brought by Allowing Korean Medicine Doctors to Use Ultrasound

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Gwan-joo] On the 26th, current doctors, radiologists, and clinical pathologists gathered in front of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Lee Pil-su, president of the Korea Medical Association, shaved his head. The KMA Special Committee on Korean Medicine is holding a one-person protest with signs reading "Condemning the irresponsible Supreme Court ruling that threatens the lives and health of the people."

Their collective backlash is in response to the Supreme Court's ruling allowing Korean Medicine doctors to use ultrasound diagnostic devices. The Supreme Court stated, "The defendant (Korean Medicine doctor) performed Korean medical treatments such as investment acupuncture, acupoint acupuncture, intra-abdominal acupuncture, transcutaneous infrared irradiation therapy, and herbal prescriptions on the patient. The diagnostic acts that formed the basis of these Korean medical treatments can be considered based on Korean medical principles." This precedent will serve as a strong basis for Korean Medicine doctors to use ultrasound diagnostic devices unless the Supreme Court later changes the precedent directly or the National Assembly enacts new laws.

The use of diagnostic medical devices by Korean Medicine doctors is a field where Western medicine and Korean medicine sharply conflict. In 2016, there was a legal battle and criticism over bone density medical devices. Korea is a country where Western and Korean medicine coexist. If citizens can choose one side for diagnosis, it may be desirable from the perspective of medical choice rights. The Supreme Court's judgment also considers that technology is advancing and the safety of diagnostic devices is improving.

However, there is room for consideration regarding expertise and public acceptance. The use of ultrasound diagnostic devices by Korean Medicine doctors and misinterpreting diagnostic results leading to misdiagnosis are different issues. The Korean Medicine doctor in this case used the device 68 times over two years but failed to diagnose endometrial cancer. The doctors' opposing argument that "only doctors who have undergone theoretical and practical training in radiology at medical schools should perform this professionally" is understandable. The important point is whether the public recognizes that Korean Medicine includes modern medical treatment utilizing modern diagnostic medical devices. Social consensus on this is necessary, and legal amendments by the National Assembly and government must be made. For now, this remains a distant issue.

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