A debate took place on Tuesday whether the “advantage” of non-face-to-face treatment that patients receive treatment whenever and wherever they want could be accepted from the aspect of patient safety and medical ethics.

Two groups of opinions clashed with each other, as one group said that the medical community should also consider patients’ convenience while the other countered they could not give up safety issues under the pretext of convenience.

In the first non-face-to-face treatment class organized by the Medical Ethics Research Society at the Seoul Medical Center on Tuesday, experts discussed the theme of the "Current reality and future direction of telemedicine." Park Myung-ha, vice chairman of the Information Medicine Committee of the Korean Medical Association, gave a lecture and committee directors participated in the class.

Kim Choong-ki, policy director of the committee, said that aside from debates between pros and cons, the medical community needs to examine why social demands for non-face-to-face treatment arise from the perspective of patient benefits and technological development. He pointed out that the medical community cannot only stick to its traditional form amid these changes.

“We (the medical community) should understand why the demand for these technologies has arisen. The most direct and the only reason must be ensuring convenience for patients to use healthcare,” Kim said. “There are places where benefits occur, like medically underprivileged areas. So it is difficult to say it is unconditionally impossible. We should consider why such demands arise rather than discussing pros and cons.”

Pointing out that all technological and social developments are made through interaction, and there is nothing absolute, Kim said that demands for change naturally arise in the medical area, too. The medical community should refrain from talking about medical care on the premise that it's a very special area. He added that as technology advances, traditional medical use patterns are likely to change, and the role of doctors is likely to change rapidly, emphasizing the medical community should not think that the medical care they see now is absolute.

“The benefits patients can get could include patient convenience. For example, if patients said they would rather watch treatment results on their smartphone at the office than go to hospitals, it would not be easy for doctors to convince them that it's dangerous,” Kim said.

However, there were also many opinions that they could not accept the risk of non-face-to-face treatment under the pretext of patients’ convenience. They said that the compromise on patient safety and quality of treatment also violates medical ethics.

“The treatment should be beneficial to the patient. However, it is questionable whether non-face-to-face treatment will guarantee the quality of treatment and benefit the patient in normal times, not in the time of infectious diseases,” a participant said. “First, we need a detailed gatekeeper that prevents treatment scenes from being distorted and abused, like the family doctor system in foreign countries.”

As a doctor and medical ethics researcher, it is difficult to accept that doctors have to make concessions because of convenience, although patients’ safety is not guaranteed, in essence, the participant said. Even if the form of treatment changes, patients' safety, and interests should be prioritized. That principle is the pride and professionalism of doctors.

Kim E-yeon, PR director at the Korea Medical Association, also said, “Currently, non-face-to-face care is provided mainly by platforms, and I think the reason is it started as a startup by medical students (as is the case with Dr. Now), not doctors. Medical students are close to medical consumers. They have never treated patients and taken responsibility for the patient till the end."

It's not that doctors couldn't develop these services because they didn't have ideas or abilities. They didn't do it because (the non-face-to-face treatment platform) touches the practice of treatment, Kim emphasized.

“The suppliers of healthcare services have worked for decades to increase the accountability and stability of treatment. If we ignore this, it will likely end up allowing convenience to swallow stability,” he added.