Gaming Disorder is also under controver in Japan
World Health Organization (WHO) is the non-government organization which has recently been controversial due to COVID-19 in the world. In May of 2019, WHO decided to adopt the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) to include an entry on “gaming disorder”.
WHO defines gaming disorder as a pattern of gaming behavior characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences. When it is recognized that the behavior pattern is of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning and would normally have been evident for at least 12 months, gaming disorder should be diagnosed.
On March-18th of 2020, the Kagawa prefecture government in Japan decided to pass the ordinance along with the decision of WHO. The constitution established this ordinance to avoid children who are 18 years old or less from getting game disorder. The summary of the rule is as follows:
- The purpose is to prevent children from getting game disorder and to be able to keep them grew up well.
- The distinctive point is to call for guardians to limit the time that their children use smartphone/computer and play game so that the time will be limited to within 60 mins per day on school days and within 90 mins per day on weekends.
However, if people deviate the ordinance, the Kagawa prefecture government cannot impose them or their parents on any penal rules because the purpose of this ordinance is to call for guardians to give their children the good environment that their children can grow up well.
As imaged easily, many critical comments were sent to the government until the ordinance was passed. Their concerns are that children are robbed their right or that the government interrupt people’s right that people can select their lifestyle on their own free. Certainly, it may be thought that their concern has reasonable rationale from viewpoint of democracy.
Here, there is a question for the concern. Can the same comment be said from viewpoint of children’s health? The answer should be “No”. The concern coming from people is pointing it out the point being totally different from the purpose of this ordinance which the government is thinking, that is, the government and critics are dicsussing this ordinance with standing on a different positions as children’s health and individual right. Although it is natural, both positions are essential to be thought. Therefore, as long as the government and critics are keeping stand on their positions, it can be interpreted that their discussion about this ordinance would not be able to be achieved.
When we try to see around ourselves, there are many situations similarly to such this case in the world. For an issue, a topic or a discussion, the opinions coming from different positions which are based on different viewpoints. The case would not be productive because people can never achieve reasonable conclusion, as described above. Although we have to face many problems (ex, COVID-19, conflict among counties/people, trouble in business/school/family, etc.), we should confirm what we should really discuss before generating our opinions.
If my blog is interesting for you, I would be glad. See you again!!
