Tele-health care system has recently attracted public attention due to the special situation of Corona-19. Tele-health care system is a comprehensive definition of a service that allows a patient to receive medical treatment from a doctor through medical equipment such as a monitor connected to a communication network without directly visiting a hospital or clinic. I think you made a great objection to the introduction of telemedicine for three reasons. However, there are a few things I would like to refute.

  First, you stated that misdiagnosis can occur and tele-health care system is unreliable, since it is worse than usual health care. Your statement is focused on the immature tele-healthcare system. However, I think the example of China will be the best refute for this. Since we are no used to the fascinating, and newest tele-health care, some people tend to imagine tele-health care is only done through old gigabot stuffs. Online hospitals are divided into hospital-led and IT company-led, depending on the protagonist of the project. Hospital-led medical institutions (hospitals, etc.) registered in the state establish an Internet platform to provide online medical services, which is the first online hospital in China, Guangdong Online Hospital.

  From what you argued, if you imagined telemedicine, you would have imagined a patient having only sluggish, boring conversations with a doctor in front of an old facility with an old dirty phone and a few cameras. However, it only matters in the Repulic of Korea. It is no exaggeration to say that telemedicine has never been properly implemented in Korea under the Medical Law. Wuzhen Online Hospital in China is a hospital capable of online treatment, issuance of electronic prescriptions, delivery of prescription drugs, and management of chronic diseases. It has a considerable number of platforms, specialized facilities, and facilities to receive in-depth diagnosis. The platform company, Way Doctor, was established in cooperation with the local government and established a network with 4000 hospitals and 20,000 pharmacies. Furthermore, through networks with government medical institutions, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance institutions, it has expanded its services from remote medical treatment to prescription-drug distribution-insurance. The reason this is possible is the telemedicine platform. The tele-health care platform connects doctors and patients using artificial intelligence and cloud. The main point is that the tele-health care system is equipped with qualitified services and facilities that are not inferior to the existing medical system.

(source: KOTRA,https://news.kotra.or.kr/user/globalBbs/kotranews/782/globalBbsDataView.do?setIdx=243&dataIdx=185743 )

  Second, you argued that since the safety of patients cannot be guaranteed, tele-health care system is dangerous. What you stated does not make any sense. As a supporting evidence, you wrote, ‘2014 Remote Medical Technical Safety Assessment conducted by the association as an external research project shows that the technological safety of telemedicine is highly vulnerable to hacking.’ It makes readers to think how high the possibility of hacking. It is disappointing that you didn’t bring evidence with numbers. To state something dangerous, you should be specific. And that evidence is made 2014, more than 6 years ago. You cannot just claim remote health care is highly dangerous with this sentence of uncertainty. And your logic is deniable. Poisoning the well you are doing. The possible crimes cannot be the reason opposing the new innovation. The fact that internet banking is less reliable than doing financial business with a bank teller and is vulnerable to security is not a reason to give up the profits from internet banking. Delivering and eating food is not prohibited because the consumer suffers from discomfort due to a delivery man's mistake or misdelivery. The remote control system, which makes our lives more convenient, causes uncertainty due to the limit of distance. However, it is not the tele-health system that should be blamed, but the criminals. It is not right to abandon tele-health systems that can effectively support remotely inhabited residents who do not receive medical benefits because of the high likelihood of crime and medical staff who are fighting at the frontline in the war on highly infectious diseases. What you're talking about is the fallacy of a blockade to solve the problem by destroying all of its roots in order to prevent the possibility of understanding occurring in a person with evil thoughts.

  Your third argument is that unreliable tele-health care and doctors may have difficulties dealing with their duties. The advanced, civilized technology is their new supporter. You mentioned that it is hard for docs to manage with communication technologies and accidents. You should not underrate doctors. They are the basic elites of our society, and unless they have awesome communication skills, courage to take the reponsibilities and intelligence accepting new medical system, they would not take their job.

As you mentioned, there are many advantages when accepting tele-health system. ‘Many problems such as the risk of misdiagnosis, information security problems, and doctor responsibility’ do not matter. Cause they are minimal, deniable and fallacy-based. Tele-health system is the innovation that can improve the Republic of Korea’s welfare.