On September 14, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that a Korean medicine doctor’s use of an ultrasound diagnostic device did not violate the Medical Act, affirming a prior Supreme Court decision. (Image courtesy of Yonhap News)
SEOUL, Sept. 18 (Korea Bizwire) – The recent series of court rulings recognizing the use of ultrasound and electroencephalogram (EEG) diagnostic devices by Doctors of Korean Medicine (or Korean Medicine Doctor (KMD)) has reignited the ongoing dispute between KMDs and conventional medical doctors.
This conflict has escalated to a critical point, exacerbated by the issue of English nomenclature.
Previously, “Oriental Medical Doctor” was the title used for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners. However, the Ministry of Health and Welfare made a name change last year, rebranding them as “Doctors of Korean Medicine,” a move criticized by the mainstream medical community as potentially confusing, despite the similarity between the two professions.
The recent court ruling is unlikely to bring closure to the controversy. More legal battles are on the horizon, particularly concerning the utilization of COVID-19 tests and specialized medications by doctors.
On September 14, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that a Korean medicine doctor’s use of an ultrasound diagnostic device did not violate the Medical Act, affirming a prior Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Korean medicine doctors could employ electroencephalographs for diagnosing conditions like Parkinson’s disease and dementia.
Additionally, on September 13, the Suwon District Court acquitted a Korean medicine doctor who used an X-ray bone density meter. The court argued that employing these medical devices did not constitute “medical practice other than that licensed as a Korean medicine doctor.”
More legal battles are on the horizon, particularly concerning the utilization of COVID-19 tests and specialized medications by doctors. (Image courtesy of Yonhap News)
This legal development was welcomed by the Korean medicine doctor community, which has long advocated for unrestricted access to modern medical devices. They hope for further advancements, such as health insurance coverage for diagnostic medical devices used by Korean medicine doctors.
In fact, the Association of Korean Medicine has already commissioned a study to pave the way for reimbursement of ultrasound diagnostics used in KMD fields.
However, the physician organization remains staunchly opposed to these recent court rulings. Shortly after the ultrasound diagnostic device decision, the Korean Medical Association issued a statement asserting that such rulings “will encourage unlicensed medical practice and jeopardize the well-being of the public.”
They claim that the defendant in the case, a Korean medicine doctor, used an ultrasound diagnostic device on 68 occasions between March 2010 and June 2012 but failed to diagnose endometrial cancer in a timely manner.
As a result, the ongoing conflict between conventional doctors and oriental medicine practitioners is poised to persist. The upcoming decision, scheduled for November, on the matter of rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 specialists will further fuel this dispute.
Last year, the government recognized positive RAT results from local hospitals and clinics as confirmed cases but excluded oriental medicine doctors from the testing process. I
n response, the Korean Medicine Association filed an administrative lawsuit against the KCDC, arguing that it was unjust to exclude them from testing despite their obligation as medical professionals to report infectious diseases. The first court ruling on this case is set for November 23, according to the association.
M. H. Lee (mhlee@koreabizwire.com)
