J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc.  2019 Nov;58(4):297-313. 10.4306/jknpa.2019.58.4.297.

Comparison of Mental Health Act about Involuntary Admission among 4 East Asian Countries

• Joe KH
• Jang M

• KMID: 2465050
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4306/jknpa.2019.58.4.297

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to explore trends associated with the amendment of The Mental Health Welfare Act by comparing involuntary admission processes in Asian countries.
METHODS
We obtained copies of the Mental Health Acts for four East Asian countries ??Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan (China). We then analyzed the contents of the acts including their definitions of mentally ill patients, the types of hospitalization, and the procedures for involuntary admission.
RESULTS
The Japanese provision for involuntary admission was the prototype used for the Korean system prior to the total revision of the Korean system in 2016. Regardless, Korea and Japan still regard family members as pivotal in deciding on involuntary admission. Taiwan and Singapore acts are characterized by the involvement of government or government-designated medical practitioners, not caregivers, in the hospitalization process. In Taiwan, involuntary admission is decided by a judgment of a review committee and is a task of the government. In Singapore, the opinions of experts are considered when making the initial decision on involuntary hospitalization, whereas a judicial decision is essential for extension of that hospitalization.
CONCLUSION
Despite cultural and historical similarities, the systems of involuntary admission were considerably different across the countries. We observed a reduction in the role of family guardians and an increase in the use of more objective screening processes. All four countries were in the process of applying those recommendations from international organizations that were in accordance with their society/culture. There may be a need to partially amend The Mental Health Welfare Act in Korea in order to protect the human rights of psychiatric patients while maintaining a stable therapeutic environment.

Keyword

Mental health act; Involuntary admission; Family guardian; Therapeutic environment; Human rights

MeSH Terms

Advisory Committees
Asian Continental Ancestry Group*
Caregivers
Hospitalization
Human Rights
Humans
Japan
Judgment
Korea
Mass Screening
Mental Health*
Mentally Ill Persons
Singapore
Taiwan

Reference

1. General Assembly of the United Nations. Principles for the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care. cited 2019 Feb 22. Available from: https://www.who.int/mental_health/policy/en/UN_Resolution_on_protection_of_persons_with_mental_illness.pdf.

2. General Assembly of the United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. cited 2019 Feb 22. Available from: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/61/106.

3. Constitutional Court of Korea. Decision of the unconstitutionality appeal of Mental Health Act Article 24(1). cited 2019 Feb 20. Available from: https://ecourt.ccourt.go.kr/coelec/websquare/websquare.html?w2xPath=/ui/coelec/dta/casesrch/EP4100_M01.xml&eventno=2014%ED%97%8C%EA%B0%809.

4. Kim MG. Discourses on Mental Health Act revision and critical analysis on Mental Health Promotion and Welfare Service Support Act. Korean J Soc Welf Stud. 2016; 47:85–111.

5. Shin KC. Rebirth of Mental Health Act, the significance and the future. Monthly Welfare Trends. 2016; 214:5–9.

6. Shin KC. Values and future challenges of suspended unconstitutionality decision on involuntary admission in Mental Health Act. Seoul Law Rev. 2017; 24:1–45.

7. Jeon JH. Birth of Mental Health and Welfare Law. Monthly Welfare Trends. 2016; 214:10–15.

8. Park JI, Park HJ. Critical review on amendment bill of Mental Health Act. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2017; 56:1–9.

9. Lee EW, Kim W. Measures for the deinstitutionalization and influx of mentally ill patients in communities by the revised Mental Health Act. Issue & Analysis. 2017; 279:1–20.

10. Yoon JS, Ahn JH, Yoon W, Kim CY. The new Mental Health and Welfare Law in Korea : issues with additional diagnosis by external psychiatrist and the role of Admission Review Committee. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2017; 56:146–153.

11. Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. A statement of opinion for the revision of “Mental Health Promotion and Welfare Service Support” Act. cited 2019 Mar 5. Available from: http://www.knpa.or.kr/.

12. Kim HS, Ahn YM, Park JI. Contemplation of legal criteria of psychiatric compulsory admission : including an introduction of US case which can be referred to the assessment of the appropriateness of hospitalization in Korea. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2018; 57:43–51.

13. Chung TH. Unconstitutionality of forced hospitalization of the mentally ill patients by the guardians. Kyung Hee Law J. 2016; 51:121–159.

14. Yang SY. The role of courts in the involuntary admission of the mentally ill patients - compared with the French legislation. Seoul Law Rev. 2017; 25:267–305.

15. Shin SJ. Involuntary Admission of Italy. Ewha Law Rev. 2017; 22:119–142.

16. elaws.e-gov.go.jp [homepage on the Internet]. Tokyo: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications;cited 2019 Mar 2. Available from: https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp.

17. lis.ly.gov.tw [homepage on the Internet]. Taipei: Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China;cited 2019 Mar 2. Available from: https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lglawkm.

18. sso.agc.gov.sg [homepage on the Internet]. Singapore: Singapore Government;cited 2019 Mar 2. Available from: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/.

19. The University of Seoul Industry Cooperation Foundation. Improvement plan of hospitalization and discharge on Mental Health Act. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2014.

20. Shin KC. The review criteria and operation methods of hospitalization appropriateness review committee. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare;2018. p. 26.

21. law.go.kr [homepage on the Internet]. Sejong: Ministry of Government Legislation;cited 2019 Mar 2. Available from: http://www.law.go.kr/.

22. Shin KC. A normative study on the concept of people with a mental illness. Lawyers Assoc J. 2010; 59:35–76.

23. Lee DJ. Revision of the Mental Health and Welfare Act for the respect of human rights and deinstitutionalization. Seoul: Research Institute for Healthcare Policy, Korean Medical Association;2018.

24. e-stat.go.jp [homepage on the Internet]. Tokyo: The National Statistics Center of Japan;cited 2019 Mar 5. Available from: https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en.

25. mhlw.go.jp [homepage on the Internet]. Tokyo: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare;cited 2019 Mar 5. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/eisei_houkoku/16/.

26. National Statistics Republic of China. Yearly Statistics. cited 2019 Mar 5. Available from: https://eng.stat.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=2265&CtUnit=1072&BaseDSD=36.

27. Jeon JY, Joe KH, Hwang TY. Official business trip report about Taiwanese mental health system. cited 2019 Nov 29. Available from: https://btis.mpm.go.kr/rpt/selectRpt.do.

28. singstat.gov.sg [homepage on the Internet]. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Singapore Government;cited 2019 Mar 5. Available from: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/.

29. Institute of Mental Health. Total annual numbers of admission and detention of 2018. Singapore: Institute of Mental Health;2019.

30. kosis.kr [homepage on the Internet]. Daejeon: Statistic Korea;cited 2019 Mar 5. Available from: http://kosis.kr/index/index.do/.

31. National Center for Mental Health. Total annual number of Involuntary Admission of Korea, 2018 (forthcoming). Seoul: National Center for Mental Health;2019.

32. Seo DW. Mental Health Policy and Law in Korea. Health and welfare policy forum. 2007; 123:42–56.

33. Shorter E. Chapter 6. Alternatives. In : Choi BM, editor. A History of Psychiatry. Seoul: Bada Publishing Co.;2009. p. 315–391.

34. Brennan TA. Just doctoring: medical ethics in the liberal state. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press;1991.

35. Brown J. The changing purpose of mental health law: from medicalism to legalism to new legalism. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2016; 47:1–9.

36. Shin KC. hapter 2. Compulsory administration. In : Shin KC, editor. The Elucidation of Mental Health and Welfare Act. Paju: Bobmunsa;2018. p. 97–236.

37. Ko YB. Dictionary of sociology. Seoul: Research Institute of Society and Culture;2000.

38. Roth M, Bluglass R. Psychiatry, human rights and the law. Seoul: Hakjisa;2018.

39. National Center for Mental Health, Ministry of Health and Welfare. The guidance of the process of hospitalization and discharge under the Mental Health and Welfare Act of Korea. Seoul: National Center for Mental Health;2018.

40. Lee CJ. Congressman Yoon IG proposed the amendment of the Mental Health and Welfare Act. Medical Times [online]. 2019. 01. 25. cited 2019 Mar 25. Available from: http://www.medicaltimes.com/Users/News/NewsView.html?mode=view&ID=1124072&REFERER=NP.

41. Lee CJ. Non-guilty of the salaried psychiatrists by the supreme court. Medical Times [online]. 2019. 03. 18. cited 2019 Mar 25. Available from: http://www.medicaltimes.com/Users/News/NewsView.html?ID=1125128.

42. Park IH. The review of the 2016 amended Korean Mental Health Promotion Act from the perspective of human rights and inclusion of persons with mental disabilities. Korean Soc Law Med. 2016; 17:209–279.