Pediatric ER Searched in Investigation into Death of 5-Month-Old Baby, Drawing Strong Medical Community Backlash

1. Overview

In July 2026, a child patient died despite 60 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation at a pediatric emergency medical center at a university hospital in southern Gyeonggi Province. About two months later, on September 30, the Gyeonggi Nambu Provincial Police Agency executed a search warrant at the same center while it was treating patients, prompting a dispute between the medical community and police. According to Doctors News, the hospital was Ajou University Hospital.

The child’s death sparked the incident, but the controversy soon shifted to the investigative methods. Police say they executed a court-issued warrant in a way that minimized disruption to treatment. The medical community counters that police entered an emergency room where an infant was being treated, interrupting care, and began a forced search without first requesting records. The Korean Medical Association and the Korean Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine have called for an apology, accountability, and guidelines for searches in emergency rooms.

2. Child’s Death and Police Report

According to Lee Ji-sook, director of Ajou University Hospital’s pediatric emergency medical center, the incident began in July in the emergency room. Medical staff performed CPR for about 60 minutes, but the child ultimately died. As reported by Yonhap News, the Korean Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine said the child had been receiving treatment for cyanosis. A YouTube video by News TV Chosun described the deceased child as a 5-month-old baby.

The guardian immediately reported the matter to police, and Director Lee said two detectives entered the emergency room. Three more officers from the forensic investigation unit then entered with cameras. Director Lee said medical staff had not finished treating the child and other patients were waiting for care, but staff had to speak with the police, and even an area where treatment was still underway was filmed. He said doctors and nurses who had been doing their best to treat the child were treated like criminals.

The society said criminal complaints followed. The Chosun Ilbo published an article titled “Just Because a Medical Malpractice Complaint Was Filed… Should the Emergency Room Be Searched Too?”, but only the headline is available here, so the specific details of the complaint are unknown.

3. The September 30 Search

About two months after the incident, on September 30, the Gyeonggi Nambu Provincial Police Agency executed a search warrant at the pediatric emergency medical center as part of its investigation into the child’s death. The society argued that the hospital had already been cooperating with the investigation and that police had verified the facts based on the death certificate, yet the search was suddenly carried out while patients were being treated.

According to Director Lee, an infant of about six months was being treated in the emergency room that day after having convulsions for more than an hour. A specialist had administered several medications, but the convulsions did not stop immediately, and further treatment and consultation were being prepared. He said the police entered the center after the infant had just managed to stabilize. Over the next hour and a half, officers checked the computers of emergency-room doctors and nurses one by one. The head nurse also spent about an hour responding to requests for records in a separate area. Director Lee said this inevitably interrupted nursing work.

The Korean Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine gave a somewhat different account of the timing. Its president, Ryu Jeong-min, said police entered at the very moment staff had just managed to secure the child’s breathing while continuously administering anticonvulsants, preparing for intubation, and entering essential orders. Kim Taek-woo, president of the Korean Medical Association, also claimed that a doctor entering orders on a computer was told to leave the workstation so officers could check it. Director Lee’s account that police arrived “after the patient had stabilized” differs from the society’s description of their arrival “as orders were being entered,” but the medical community’s accounts agree that an infant was receiving treatment at the time.

4. Police Response

The Gyeonggi Nambu Provincial Police Agency rejected the medical community’s claims, saying it had taken particular care to avoid disrupting treatment. Yonhap News reported the police account as follows: The investigation team arrived at the hospital at around 9:30 a.m. and attempted to inspect three examination rooms in the center at around 11 a.m. Because one room had a patient in it, officers initially checked only the layout and the presence of medical equipment in the other two rooms. This took about 15 minutes. Police said they understood that no other patients were waiting.

Police said they then waited for more than four hours. At around 3:30 p.m., after the hospital informed them that treatment in the remaining examination rooms had ended, officers entered the vacant space and inspected its interior for about two minutes. A police official said the search was conducted under a court-issued warrant and that, taking into account the nature of an emergency room, officers had sought to inspect only its layout in the shortest time possible. Meanwhile, the medical community says the acting police chief described the search as having caused “no disruption to care because there were no patients” and as having “ended quickly in 17 minutes.”

5. Growing Backlash from the Medical Community

On October 1, the Korean Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine issued a statement condemning the search, saying, “Searching an emergency room while care is underway threatens patient safety and chills essential pediatric care.” The society said that in a pediatric emergency center, a delay of even a few seconds can determine whether a child lives or dies, and that the sudden arrival of investigators could distract medical staff. It also argued that electronic medical records cannot be altered or falsified after the fact, and criticized the use of a warrant as violating the principles of proportionality and minimal intrusion. That same day, Kim Seong-geun, spokesperson for the Korean Medical Association, said it seemed to be the first time an emergency room treating patients had been searched, adding that the incident had renewed medical staff’s suspicion that emergency rooms were being viewed as crime scenes in waiting.

Criticism soon spread to other organizations. In a statement on October 6, the National Association of Medical College Professors cited Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires the least intrusive means, and Article 12 of the Emergency Medical Service Act, which prohibits interference with emergency care. It said that investigations under warrants should still protect patient safety and continuity of care to the greatest extent possible. The association also demanded that investigators explain why they had forced their way into the treatment area despite the availability of medical records, prescriptions, test results, CCTV footage, and work schedules that could be obtained outside it. It also cited the example of Japan, which, after the acquittal in the Fukushima Prefectural Ōno Hospital case was finalized, established an approach of restraining and carefully conducting investigations into medical accidents.

On October 15, the Korean Medical Association and the Korean Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine held a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Hall titled “Press Conference Condemning the Search of a Pediatric Emergency Room.” President Kim Taek-woo claimed that police had made neither a single request for records nor a request for voluntary submission before beginning a forced search. Director Lee also attended and described what had happened. He emphasized that the point was not that the hospital refused to cooperate with the investigation, but that minimum procedures and standards were needed to allow investigations to proceed without compromising patient care. President Ryu drew a distinction, saying, “We are not asking for pediatric emergency centers to be made into extraterritorial sanctuaries,” but warned that if specialists left and centers returned their emergency-center designations, responsibility would lie with the investigative authorities. Headlines of related Doctors News articles refer to the society discussing “returning the center’s designation,” the selection of officials as witnesses for a National Assembly audit, and the government’s position that it would work with the National Police Agency to establish guidelines.

6. Authenticity Debate

The central questions are whether the search actually disrupted emergency treatment and whether a forced search that entered the emergency-room premises was necessary.

6.1. The Case That the Warrant Was Properly Executed Without Disrupting Care

The police argue that the warrant was issued by a court and that its execution was minimized. According to their account, officers did not enter the examination room where a patient was being treated. Instead, they waited for more than four hours and inspected only the vacant space for about two minutes after treatment had ended. The inspection of the other two rooms took about 15 minutes, and police say there were no other patients waiting at the time.

Regarding why they chose a forced search, a headline in a related Doctors News article says the acting police chief cited “concerns about alteration or falsification.” The Korean Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine also said that, during a National Assembly audit, a police official responsible for the matter said, “We judged that a forced investigation would resolve suspicions better than voluntary submission.”

6.2. The Case That It Was an Excessive Search of an Emergency Room Treating a Patient

The medical community first argues that the police claim of “no disruption” does not match what happened on the ground. It says police entered while an infant had been convulsing for more than an hour, receiving anticonvulsants, and being prepared for intubation, and that a doctor entering orders was told to leave the workstation. Director Lee said the computers of doctors and nurses were checked for about an hour and a half, while the head nurse spent about an hour responding. The medical community argues that the figure of “17 minutes” therefore does not account for the impact on treatment. The society also points to the search of outpatient examination rooms in the afternoon, following the morning search of the emergency room, and argues that the absence of waiting patients alone cannot rule out the possibility of interference with emergency care.

A more fundamental objection is whether this method was necessary at all. The Korean Medical Association claims there had not been a single request for records or voluntary submission. The Korean Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine says the hospital was already cooperating with the investigation and that medical records cannot be altered or falsified after the fact. The association of medical college professors points out that prescriptions, test results, CCTV footage, and work schedules could have been obtained outside the treatment area. It demanded that investigators explain what evidence required them to enter an emergency treatment area directly, two months after the incident. The medical community argues that if this approach is repeated, it will inevitably lead to emergency medical staff leaving and to defensive medicine.

The facts presented by the two sides have yet to be reconciled. The times and locations described by police differ from the medical community’s accounts of the treatment underway and the timing of the officers’ entry, and the reports do not identify any independent records that could establish what care was delayed and by how long. The reports also do not establish the cause of the child’s death or whether there was medical malpractice, leaving the controversy unresolved as to the appropriateness of the investigative methods alone.

7. Trivia

• A post titled “The guardian immediately called the police after the child died despite 60 minutes of attempted pediatric CPR in the emergency room, and the police forced their way in” was posted on theqoo. Broadcast screenshots attached to the post carried captions reading “The forensic investigation unit has entered” and “Police storm in… the center director’s ‘anger.’”
• The deceased child was described as 5 months old in the title of a YouTube video. By contrast, Doctors News and Medipana News reported that the infant being treated in the emergency room on the day of the search was 6 months old. The two children were different patients, so they can easily be confused.
• The publisher of Doctors News is listed as Kim Taek-woo, president of the Korean Medical Association, who was a participant in the press conference. This is worth keeping in mind when reading articles presenting the medical community’s position.