The revised Mental Health Act, in which the legal status and role of “the committee for the appropriateness of hospitalization” as an administrative committee, which has been launched since June 2017, is discussed. The German and British laws were reviewed in comparison with the Korean laws, focusing on the similarities and differences among the laws and which parts require revision. This study reported that patient care should be considered not only from a constitutional point of view, but also from a health care point of view. Self-determination and medical paternalism are both important but generally incompatible values. In recent days, objective and fair diagnosis from medical experts have been challenging. The current Mental Health Act was inevitably revised to actively accept the decisions of the Constitutional Court and apparently guarantee the basic rights of people in the future. The pros and cons of “the committee for the appropriateness of hospitalization” and which parts need to be revised to perform its role properly as a guardian of the admission procedure are assessed. This should reflect the current reality of the mental health medical community. In addition, a face-to-face examination should be made in principle. Nevertheless, the basic rights of the mentally ill are not guaranteed based on current law because of the shortage of budget and human resources. The final option maybe the introduction of a judicial system on involuntary admission. Legitimacy and professionalism are engagements that should be adhered to when treating psychiatric patients.
The revised Mental Health Act, in which the legal status and role of “the committee for the appropriateness of hospitalization” as an administrative committee, which has been launched since June 2017, is discussed. The German and British laws were reviewed in comparison with the Korean laws, focusing on the similarities and differences among the laws and which parts require revision. This study reported that patient care should be considered not only from a constitutional point of view, but also from a health care point of view. Self-determination and medical paternalism are both important but generally incompatible values. In recent days, objective and fair diagnosis from medical experts have been challenging. The current Mental Health Act was inevitably revised to actively accept the decisions of the Constitutional Court and apparently guarantee the basic rights of people in the future. The pros and cons of “the committee for the appropriateness of hospitalization” and which parts need to be revised to perform its role properly as a guardian of the admission procedure are assessed. This should reflect the current reality of the mental health medical community. In addition, a face-to-face examination should be made in principle. Nevertheless, the basic rights of the mentally ill are not guaranteed based on current law because of the shortage of budget and human resources. The final option maybe the introduction of a judicial system on involuntary admission. Legitimacy and professionalism are engagements that should be adhered to when treating psychiatric patients.
서 론 강제입원의 성격과 구조적 한계 강제입원 절차에 대한 외국의 입법례 우리나라의 입원적합성심사위원회에 대한 입법평가 결 론
