Mediation of medical malpractice

A vehicle loaded with gasoline crashed into a university hospital in Seoul in 2002. The rampage was committed by a disgruntled patient who lost his leg in an operation at the hospital. In a provincial hospital last year, a 50-year-old man with diabetes had to have his limbs amputated because he developed blood poisoning after having a prostate biopsy. He was later found not to have prostate cancer, so the patient’s family claimed that he lost his legs and arms due to medical malpractice. The hospital denied responsibility by saying its doctors did what textbooks say.

In the event of malpractice, families of the affected patients make disturbances at hospitals to receive monetary damages or file civil lawsuits. If those affected by medical accidents launch protests and use violence against doctors, the image of the hospitals is greatly tarnished regardless of whether their staff made mistakes. The number of medical lawsuits has nearly doubled over the past eight years from 585 in 2001 to 911 in 2009. The parties to lawsuits, families of patients and medical staff all suffer financially and psychologically, however. That is why people say the sole winner of such a lawsuit is lawyers.

The National Assembly passed Friday a law to help victims of medical accidents and mediate medical conflict, giving hope to sever the vicious circle involving malpractice. The passage of the law has ended a confrontation between physicians’ organizations and civic groups over the law 23 years after the necessity of the law was suggested in 1988. Under the law, a center to mediate medical conflicts will be established. If those affected by malpractice ask for help from the center, an inspection team of doctors, legal experts and civil rights advocates will spring into action. Based on the investigation results, an arbitration committee will present a mediation plan and if both parties accept the plan, the doctors in question will not face prosecution. Exceptions are applied, however, if a patient is in critical condition or suffers from disability. If either party disagrees with the plan, a lawsuit is inevitable.

The passage of the law was possible, however, because it did not mention who will take responsibility for proving malpractice, which has been the key issue. Though neither patients nor physicians are completely satisfied with the law, the existence of a third party to conduct independent investigations will significantly reduce social costs. More than anything, the law’s passage has removed a stumbling block for medical tourism development because both Koreans and foreigners are subject to arbitration. Hopefully, the law, which was passed in parliament in a bipartisan manner, will help advance Korea’s medical culture and attract overseas patients.

Editorial Writer Chung Sung-hee (shchung@donga.com)