정신건강증진 및 정신질환자 복지서비스 지원에 관한 법률 제43조 및 민법 제947조의2 제2항에 의한 비자의입원의 상호관계

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The revised Mental Health Act, which will come into force as from 30th May 2017, qualifies the involuntary admission to psychiatric hospitals and institutions more narrow than the current Mental Health Act. The involuntary admission will be allowed only where the patients suffer mental illness sufficient enough to be treated or cared in a confined environment and they are likely to harm themselves or others. With such a revision, it will become more clearly revealed that the involuntary admission to mental hospitals and institutions is a deprivation of liberty by law, which has been regarded as a family matter or as an admission by family members. The involuntary admission should, therefore, be strictly controlled in conformity with an exception to the right to liberty of persons and safety, meaning that it shall be allowed only if it is consistent with an exception to Article 12 of the Korean Constitution Act, the right to liberty. According to the revised Mental Health Act, the involuntary admission will be reviewed firstly by the Suitability of Admission Review Committee, which is an institution of administrative review. That being said, the judicial review has still been open to the in-patients in accordance with the Protection of Person Act 2007. Psychiatrists who involuntarily admit mentally ill persons to psychiatric hospitals and institutions can be exposed to criminal liabilities as well as civil liabilities if they violate the involuntary admission legal provisions. It is a by-product of the power to involuntarily admit persons with mental illness, with which the involuntary admission in the public law, the Mental Health Act, endows psychiatrists.
On the other hand, the involuntary admission shall not be allowed to the persons who suffer mental illness sufficient enough to be treated or cared in a confined environment, but who are unlikely to harm themselves or others in accordance with the revised Mental Health Act. The involuntary admission will be examined only in accordance with Article 947-2 section 2 of the Civil Code in Korea. This kind of involuntary admission can be executed only by an informed consent of competent guardians. Therefore, it is a pure civil commit to psychiatric hospitals. That being said, the involuntary admission in accordance with Article 947-2 section 2 entails a deprivation of liberty of in-patients, and the article 947-2 section 2 of Civil Code requires the authorization by a competent family court of the informed consent by a competent guardian. The family court should consider the necessity and suitability of the suggested involuntary admission with the effect of a deprivation of liberty, the suggested length of stay at hospitals, the will and preference of the patients at the time od delibration for the approval of the informed consent by guardians. The patients can appeal to family court when they are under the civil commit to psychiatric hospitals. This kind of involuntary admission is on the different track from the public law involuntary admission. In the case of civil law involuntary admission, psychiatrists shall not be exposed to civil liabilities nor criminal liabilities only on the ground that guardians abuse their power to informed consent to involuntary admission.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 홍춘의, "후견제도 개혁의 과제" 한국가족법학회 16 (16): 1-39, 2002

2 백승흠, "후견인의 요양, 감호의무에 관한 고찰 - 개정전 일본 민법의 해석론과 성년후견을 중심으로 -" 한국가족법학회 18 (18): 149-176, 2004

3 이재경, "정신질환자의 비자발적 입원에 관한 비교법적 검토 - 독일법을 중심으로 -" 대한의료법학회 10 (10): 183-201, 2009

4 서경석, "정신질환자의 기본권을 위한 법제의 변화" 한국헌법학회 14 (14): 325-356, 2008

5 박인환, "정신장애인의 인권과 지역사회통합의 관점에서 본 2016년 정신건강증진법의 평가와 과제" 대한의료법학회 17 (17): 209-279, 2016

6 이동명, "정신보건법상의 강제입원에 관한 연구" 13 (13): 2001

7 이철호, "정신보건법과 정신장애인의 인권" 한국헌법학회 13 (13): 229-258, 2007

8 박인환, "의사결정지원을 위한 성년후견제도의 평가와 모색" 한국비교사법학회 22 (22): 725-758, 2015

9 서동우, "우리나라 정신보건법의 역사" 대한신경정신의학회 49 (49): 144-148, 2010

10 이재경, "성년후견제도에 있어서 정신질환자에 대한 의료행위와 후견인의 동의권에 관한 연구" 한국가족법학회 26 (26): 419-438, 2012

11 제철웅, "성년후견인의 민법 제755조의 책임- 그 정당성에 대한 비판적 검토 -" 법조협회 61 (61): 5-53, 2012

12 박호균, "성년후견과 의료-개정 민법 제947조의 2를 중심으로-" 대한의료법학회 13 (13): 125-153, 2012

13 박인환, "새로운 성년후견제도에 있어서 신상보호 ―신상결정의 대행과 그 한계―" 한국가족법학회 25 (25): 147-198, 2011

14 김형석, "민법 개정안에 따른 성년후견법제" 한국가족법학회 24 (24): 111-166, 2010

15 최행식, "개정 정신보건법의 주요내용과 향후의 과제" 32 (32): 2016

16 제철웅, "개정 민법상의 후견계약의 특징, 문제점 그리고 개선방향 :후견대체제도의 관점을 중심으로" 한국민사법학회 66 : 99-134, 2014

17 WHO, "WHO-AIMS Report on Mental Health System in Republic of Korea" 2006

18 WHO, "WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation"

19 Brown, R., "The Approved Mental Health Professional’s Guide to Mental Health Law" Sage 2013

20 L. Gostin, "Principles of Mental Health Law and Policy" 2010

21 Fröshle, "Praxis Kommentar Betreuungs- und Unterbringungsverfahren" Bundesanzeiger Verlag 2014

22 Bartlett, P., "Mental Health Law" 2014

23 McHale, J., "Health Care Law" Sweet & Maxwell 2007

24 UN CRPD Committee, "Guidelines on article 14 of the Convention on the Rights with Disabilities"

25 Ashton, "Court of Protection Practice" 2010

26 Smith, A., "Comparative Perspectives on Adult Guardianship" Carolina Academic Press 2014

27 Deinert, Horst, "Betreuungszahlen 2015"

28 Deinert Bear H., "Betreuungszahlen 2012-2013"