The National Human Rights Commission of Korea said Tuesday that a psychiatric hospital violated a man’s constitutional right to physical liberty by admitting him based on consent from family members who were not legally qualified guardians.
The case stems from a complaint filed in January by the man’s sister, who alleged that he had been forcibly hospitalized based on the consent of his spouse and son, neither of whom qualified as a legal guardian at the time.
The man was admitted in January and remained hospitalized until early April.
According to the commission, the son requested emergency transport for the man on Jan. 24 and submitted documents, including a family relations certificate and a resident registration record.
The commission found that the son had been placed under a court-issued restraining order in November for assaulting his father and that the case had been referred to prosecutors.
It also found that the spouse had filed for divorce in December, after the son’s case was sent to prosecutors.
Under Article 43-1 of the Mental Health Welfare Act, the head of a psychiatric institution may admit a person with mental illness only when at least two guardians request the admission and a psychiatrist determines that hospitalization is necessary.
Under the same law, anyone engaged in litigation with the patient, or who has previously been, cannot serve as a legal guardian.
“The law clearly states that a person involved in litigation against a mentally ill patient cannot become that patient’s guardian, yet the hospital proceeded with the admission without sufficiently verifying this,” the commission said.
“It amounted to a violation of the Mental Health Welfare Act and infringed on the victim’s physical liberty guaranteed by the Constitution,” it added.
The commission recommended in early April that the hospital director begin discharge review procedures and provide staff with training on the legal requirements for involuntary admission.
The man has since been discharged.
The hospital, however, argued that both the attending physician and a psychiatrist at another hospital had concluded in a second diagnosis that inpatient treatment was necessary. It said it had neither violated admission procedures nor unfairly forced the man into hospitalization.
seungku99@heraldcorp.com
