The debate over healthcare autonomy and the legal boundaries of medical practice has reached a new flashpoint in South Korea. On May 12, the Buddhist Human Rights Committee issued a formal call for the government to dismantle what it describes as a “medical monopoly,” arguing that current laws infringe upon the fundamental right of citizens to choose their own method of healing.
Led by co-representatives Ven. Jingwan, and Ven. Dogwan, the committee is urging a comprehensive amendment to the Medical Service Act. The organization contends that the current legal framework, which strictly limits medical practice to licensed professionals, systematically excludes traditional and folk healing arts, thereby depriving the public of diverse healthcare options.
As a physician and health journalist, I have observed similar tensions globally between standardized evidence-based medicine and ancestral healing traditions. In South Korea, this friction is particularly acute due to the country’s rigorous regulatory environment and the deep cultural roots of traditional practices. The committee’s challenge is not merely about the legality of certain treatments, but about the philosophical definition of healthcare and who is permitted to provide it.
Challenging the ‘Medical Monopoly’
At the heart of the Buddhist Human Rights Committee’s argument is the claim that the state’s strict control over medical licensure has evolved into a monopoly that limits patient autonomy. The committee asserts that when the law criminalizes the practice of traditional or folk medicine by those without a conventional medical degree, it effectively removes the “right to choose” from the patient.
The Medical Service Act in South Korea is designed to ensure patient safety by mandating that only those who have completed accredited medical education and passed national examinations can treat patients. While this system is intended to prevent malpractice and ensure a standard of care, the committee argues that it fails to account for the historical and spiritual dimensions of healing that have existed for centuries.
Ven. Jingwan and Ven. Dogwan have emphasized that traditional and folk medicine often address the holistic needs of a patient—incorporating mental, spiritual, and physical health—in ways that the modern, fragmented medical system may overlook. By seeking institutional recognition, the committee aims to create a legal pathway where traditional practitioners can operate without fear of prosecution, provided there are appropriate safeguards in place.
The Legal Conflict: Safety vs. Autonomy
The tension between the Buddhist Human Rights Committee and the current legal status quo reflects a broader global struggle. From a clinical perspective, the primary concern of regulatory bodies is the lack of standardized clinical trials for many folk remedies. Without rigorous data, government health agencies are hesitant to grant official recognition, fearing an increase in unregulated treatments that could lead to adverse patient outcomes.
However, the committee posits that “safety” should not be used as a tool for exclusion. They argue that the current system ignores the empirical success of traditional practices that have been passed down through generations. The push for the amendment of the Medical Service Act is therefore a push for a new regulatory model—one that recognizes traditional expertise while establishing a framework for accountability that does not require a Western-style medical degree.
Who is Affected by the Current Framework?
The impact of this legal battle extends beyond the practitioners of traditional medicine. It affects several key stakeholders in the Korean healthcare ecosystem:
- Patients: Those who prefer traditional healing or who find conventional medicine insufficient for their needs are currently forced to seek these services in a legal “gray area.”
- Traditional Practitioners: Many skilled healers operating within Buddhist and folk traditions face the risk of criminal charges under the Medical Service Act for practicing medicine without a license.
- The Medical Community: Licensed physicians and the Korean Medical Association generally support strict licensure to maintain professional standards and protect public health from unverified treatments.
- Policy Makers: The government must balance the constitutional right to health and autonomy with the statutory obligation to protect citizens from medical harm.
The Role of Buddhist Philosophy in Healthcare
The involvement of the Buddhist Human Rights Committee is significant because it frames healthcare as a human rights issue. In Buddhist philosophy, healing is often seen as a process of returning to a state of balance and mindfulness, rather than simply the eradication of symptoms. By advocating for the recognition of folk medicine, the committee is arguing that the state should respect the spiritual and cultural identity of patients who view healing as a holistic journey.
This perspective suggests that a “one size fits all” approach to medical licensure is an oversimplification of human health. The committee argues that by integrating traditional knowledge into the legal system, South Korea could move toward a more inclusive healthcare model that respects both scientific rigor and cultural heritage.
What So for the Future of Healthcare Policy
The demand for the amendment of the Medical Service Act is likely to trigger a complex legislative debate. For such a change to occur, the government would need to develop a new set of criteria for “institutional recognition.” This could include:
- Certification Programs: Creating a separate licensure or certification process for traditional practitioners based on apprenticeship, lineage, and demonstrated competence.
- Scope of Practice: Clearly defining what traditional practitioners can and cannot do, ensuring they refer patients to conventional hospitals for emergency or acute surgical needs.
- Patient Consent: Strengthening informed consent laws so that patients are fully aware of the difference between a licensed medical doctor and a recognized traditional healer.
If the Buddhist Human Rights Committee succeeds in shifting the narrative, it could pave the way for a pluralistic healthcare system where conventional and traditional medicine coexist under a shared regulatory umbrella. This would mirror systems in other parts of Asia where traditional medicine is integrated into the national health framework, provided it meets certain quality and safety benchmarks.
Expert Analysis: The Physician’s Perspective
From my experience in internal medicine and public health, the challenge is always the “evidence gap.” The medical community relies on double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to validate a treatment. Traditional medicine, however, often relies on observational evidence and historical success. The bridge between these two is “integrative medicine.”
The goal should not be to replace the Medical Service Act with a law that allows anyone to claim they are a healer, but to evolve the law to recognize legitimate traditional expertise. When patients feel their cultural or spiritual needs are ignored by the medical establishment, they often migrate toward unregulated and potentially dangerous “underground” clinics. Bringing traditional medicine into the light of institutional recognition is, ironically, a way to increase patient safety by bringing these practices under some form of oversight.
Key Takeaways
| Issue | Current Status (Medical Service Act) | Committee’s Proposed Change |
|---|---|---|
| Licensure | Only university-trained, licensed doctors can practice. | Institutional recognition for traditional/folk healers. |
| Patient Choice | Limited to licensed medical options. | Expansion of the “right to choose” diverse healing methods. |
| Legal Status | Unlicensed practice is a criminal offense. | Legalization and regulation of traditional practices. |
| Healthcare Model | Standardized, evidence-based medicine. | Pluralistic, holistic, and culturally inclusive care. |
The call for action on May 12 serves as a reminder that healthcare is not just a technical service, but a social and cultural practice. As the Buddhist Human Rights Committee continues to push for legal reform, the conversation will likely move toward how the state can protect the public without erasing the cultural legacies of healing.
The next critical step will be whether the committee can secure a formal hearing with the Ministry of Health and Welfare or find legislative sponsors within the National Assembly to introduce a bill amending the Medical Service Act. We will continue to monitor these developments as they unfold.
Do you believe traditional healing practices should be legally recognized alongside conventional medicine, or does this pose too great a risk to public safety? Share your thoughts in the comments below.