Seattle University Collaborative Projects - International Academy of ...

Myeong-Sook Yoon, Chonbuk National University (yoon64@jbnu.ac.kr)Sulki Chung, Chung-Ang University (chungs@cau.ac.kr)During the past 10 years, a growing number of Koreans have experienced addiction (either toalcohol and/or other drugs, gambling, or the internet). There is a high prevalence of addictionproblems in Korea. The lifetime prevalence of alcohol related disorders was 13.4% in 2011, andprevalence of gambling addiction and internet addiction was 6.1% and 7.7%, respectively.Addiction not only devastates individuals and families, but it also creates social and economiccrises. The aim of this study is to review addiction problems and service delivery systems inrelation to the management of addiction problems in Korea, with a specific focus on the role ofmental health professionals. Findings show a lack of systemic features in organizationalstructures, fiscal problems and a scarcity of experts. Despite increased awareness of the necessityfor addiction policy and services, each addiction system has developed independently, andpolicies, funding and service delivery models vary significantly. Developments in legislation andregulations in prevention and care are described. Directions for improvement have beensuggested in the form of integrated addiction services delivery systems. The government needs toconstantly evaluate its policy and develop its options within the area of legislation andregulations which should also include critical comparisons to the situation in other countries. Anintegrated addiction management system should develop to be more responsive to addiction andits symptoms.Introduction of New Laws and the Lack of Interface in the Mental Health Act inKoreaMoon-Geun Kim, Daegu University (ctstars@hanmail.net)The Korean Mental Health Act of 1995 provided grounds for the protection of the mentally illthrough provisions concerning involuntary admission and community mental health services.With the inclusion of disability from mental disorders into the definition of disability in therevised Disability Act in 1999, a new path was made for people with chronic mental disorders toreceive diverse disability benefits from governments. Recently the introduction of the ActivityAssistance Act (2011) and the introduction of adult guardianship by the revision of the Civil Act(2011) altogether enhanced the safety net for the mentally ill. But differences in definitions ofmental disability between these laws hinder seamless protection of human rights and welfare forthe mentally ill. For example, the Disability Act restricted the use of community rehabilitationservices for those disabled by chronic mental disorders on the grounds that they can use thoseservices under the Mental Health Act. But there are differences in definitions of mental disabilityand service paradigms between the two acts. Based on the principle of self-selection amongmultiple services in the Disability Act, the mentally disabled should have unlimited rights tocommunity services. We are also expecting adult guardianship services for the mentally disabledin July 2013, but the Mental Health Act does not have any provisions concerning mental capacityand adult guardianship services for the mentally disabled. Therefore a review of definitions of265