2304 박민재

 Due to Covid-19, controversy over telemedicine is heating up in various fields, including the medical community. The need for telemedicine expansion is emerging as patients who cannot go to the hospital often receive medical treatment or are prescribed over the phone or the Internet. Pros and cons are tense based on the convenience of care. I support the introduction of telemedicine for three reasons.

 First, telemedicine can provide mental and material benefits. Seoul National University Hospital said both medical staff and patients were satisfied as a result of attempting non-face-to-face medical treatment, including remote monitoring, by running a Mungyeong Life Treatment Center. Seoul National University Hospital recently introduced a non-face-to-face treatment system to treat patients with Covid-19 at Boramae Hospital in Seoul. After non-face-to-face treatment, medical staff were able to save about 30 pairs of protective clothing that they change whenever they checked the patient's body temperature, and the patient's medical time and cost were greatly reduced.

 It can also lower the social cost burden of an aging society. For example, it is problematic for an elderly patient living in Busan to waste time and high costs all day by KTX with his guardian to receive three minutes of medical treatment at Seoul National University Hospital. Telemedicine can save this wasted cost.

 Secondly, competent doctors can stand out. Medical professionals often describe the relationship between a patient and a doctor as a model of the owner's representative. The agent has more knowledge and ability than the owner, so a delegating relationship is formed. Eventually, the patient needs the authority to select and be treated the agent he or she wants. If telemedicine is performed, the patient who is the owner can select the doctor who is the agent he or she wants, which can lead to the right competition between doctors for the exercise of ability and knowledge, and the incompetent doctor can be culled. After all, it can also have a positive impact on improving our quality of care.

 Third, it is necessary to expand telemedicine to escape the risk of diseases (arrhythmia, etc.) that have no symptoms or, in severe cases, can cause sudden death. Regarding arrhythmias, local patients do not need to come to large hospitals in Seoul if ECG remote monitoring is possible. You can get an electrocardiogram at a nearby hospital, listen to the results through remote monitoring, and receive treatment and management, including prescription, at a hospital near your home. This is because arrhythmia is a representative disease that allows general hospitals and primary medical institutions to coexist and manage and educate patients. Patients can benefit greatly from telemedicine, including preventing death risks.

 Regarding the patient concentration, which is cited as the main reason for opposition to telemedicine, we should not be afraid of this, but should have a system in which secondary and tertiary medical institutions cooperate, focusing on patients. Telemedicine is needed in this process. Therefore, the argument about the collapse of care delivery systems is irresponsible. This should be transformed into a system of medical cooperation.

 The problems caused by Covid-19 have been around for a long time as Covid-19 continues. Non-face-to-face care, however, should be phased in from areas where safety and effectiveness can be recognized. It is hoped that the system will be established as a desirable and balanced system by combining open and forward-looking discussions and critical reviews depending on the issue.