"Bundle of Deception"... Background Behind Both Patients and Doctors Saying 'NO' to the Medical Accident Special Act [Essential Medical Solutions]

Essential Medical Departments, Urgent Need to Alleviate Litigation Burden
"Special Act Full of Deceptive Provisions"
"Disadvantageous to Victims or Bereaved with Burden of Proof"
Both Patients and Doctors Say "NO NO"

Editor's NoteThe medical crisis caused by the collective resignation of residents has entered its fifteenth day as of the 4th, yet the government and the medical community continue their standoff. There are conflicting interpretations from both sides regarding the core policy of medical reform, the ‘solution to the avoidance of essential medical care.’ Opinions sharply diverge on the effectiveness of the government’s proposed ‘Essential Medical Care Package’ policy, which includes increasing medical school quotas by 2,000. This article examines three key issues related to the government’s solution for essential medical care (① Ban on Mixed Treatment ② Special Medical Accident Handling Act ③ Regional Essential Physician System) and also reviews examples of essential medical care policies in advanced countries.

① The 32 trillion won non-reimbursed expenditure expansion control link, remaining issues of the ‘Ban on Mixed Treatment’

② The core trigger, the Special Medical Accident Handling Act... Narrowing the gap with medical stakeholders

③ Japan has focused on countermeasures and resolving maldistribution since the 1970s... Recommendations for Korea

④ Concerns over the ‘closure’ of Seonam Medical School recurring... To ensure the effectiveness of the Regional Essential Physician System

The government’s proposed Special Medical Accident Handling Act, aimed at alleviating the legal burden on medical professionals, faces opposition from both medical and patient organizations, with no consensus reached yet.

Health and Welfare Minister Cho Kyu-hong is speaking at the Public Hearing on the Medical Accident Handling Special Act held at the National Assembly on the 29th of last month. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

The Special Act is a bill that exempts medical professionals from prosecution for medical accidents if they are enrolled in ‘liability insurance or mutual aid.’ Medical accidents occurring in non-essential areas such as cosmetic procedures will not be punished if the victim does not wish to pursue charges. However, if medical records are falsified, CCTV footage is not recorded or is destroyed, or if basic conditions are not met?such as surgical negligence in other areas or medical procedures performed without patient consent?the special provisions will not apply.

Reducing litigation burdens has long been a demand of physicians in essential departments (internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, emergency medicine, etc.). Medical associations believe that support for pediatricians sharply declined after the 2017 incident at Ewha Mokdong Hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit, where four newborns died from hospital-acquired infections, resulting in the detention of three medical staff and prosecution of seven.

The government views the avoidance of essential departments as worsening due to the litigation burden on medical staff and plans to implement legal support measures. Cho Kyu-hong, Minister of Health and Welfare, explained regarding the Special Act, “The core is to ensure patients receive proper compensation and to reduce litigation risks so that medical professionals engaged in essential medical care can practice with confidence and are not driven away.”

Medical experts oppose the Special Act, arguing it is not a proper incentive. They point out that while prosecution and judicial procedures are not pursued for moderate to severe injuries under the special provisions, death cases are not exempt from prosecution. Also, the act’s protection conditions are vague and limited, requiring participation in mediation and arbitration procedures by the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency to apply, making it unlikely that physicians will feel the policy’s effectiveness. Park In-sook, External Cooperation Committee Chair of the Korean Medical Association’s Emergency Response Committee, told this publication, “The Special Act is a deceptive bundle full of toxic clauses,” adding, “It is written so complicatedly that it lacks focus like a patchwork, and it is unclear what it intends to do for doctors.”

Park criticized, “It only sides with insurance companies, blinds the doctors, and causes confusion. Since the Special Act relates to medical accident insurance, it should be carefully crafted by doctors familiar with medical law and legal experts, listening to field stories and the difficulties of victims step by step. It is unacceptable for the government to unilaterally draft it and say, ‘Doctors, take what we give you. If you don’t, you suffer alone.’”

Professor Jung Hyung-sun of Yonsei University’s Department of Health Administration said, “Emphasizing only the unfair situations of patients has its limits. This Special Act was drafted by the government as one of the solutions to appease doctors, but it lacks effectiveness and faces opposition from patients, so there is no need to push it forward.”

Patient organizations also immediately opposed the bill, criticizing it for reflecting only doctors’ perspectives while neglecting victims. Since proving damages in civil lawsuits for medical accidents is difficult, criminal complaints are often filed simultaneously. There are concerns that the Special Act would unilaterally disadvantage victims or their families.

Lee Eun-young, Director of the Korea Patient Organization Federation, stated at a public hearing on the Special Medical Accident Handling Act held on the 29th of last month at the National Assembly Library Auditorium, “Medical accident victims and their families are absolutely vulnerable in medical disputes because proving causality is difficult and lawsuits require high costs and long durations. Prohibiting prosecution or reducing criminal penalties for medical staff solely because they have insurance, without explanations, regrets, or apologies regarding the accident’s circumstances, raises constitutional issues.” She noted that the Constitutional Court ruled in 2009 that exempting traffic accident perpetrators with comprehensive insurance from punishment even if they cause serious injuries was unconstitutional.