The National Statistical Office in South Korea is at the center of a new controversy involving the classification of gaming disorder in the Korean standard disease classification (KCD). This dispute has significant implications for both public health and the gaming industry, drawing parallels to ongoing debates in the U.S. about the classification and treatment of gaming addiction.

According to Representative Kang Yoo-jeong of the Culture Sports and Tourism Committee and the chairman of the Democratic Party’s Special Game Committee, the National Statistical Office’s ‘Game Disability Public Private Council’ meeting held on February 20th discussed the potential inclusion of gaming disorder in the KCD. Kang stated, “Based on ‘based on,’ she said that she should be listed as a game disorder code.”

The National Statistical Office has proposed that member states should adhere to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ICD-11 license, which prohibits the ‘adaptation’ of ICD-11. This stance has sparked criticism from Kang, who pointed out that the WHO’s license agreement does not have a direct legal binding in South Korea. She argued that the National Statistical Office’s late introduction of new conditions undermines the procedural legitimacy of issues already discussed through the public-private council for many years. Additionally, Kang highlighted the lack of transparency in disclosing important information externally.

The parliamentary office pointed out that the WHO’s license agreement is not a domestic legal forced effect, and that it is undermining procedural legitimacy to present new conditions late on issues that have already been discussed through the public -private council for many years. In addition, even if the statistics of the National Statistical Office are true, it is also a big problem that this important information has not been disclosed externally.

National Assembly member Kang Yoo-jeong

The National Statistical Office maintains that listing gaming disorder as a disease is indispensable based on the WHO’s license agreement. However, they also stated through a press release, “We are preparing and operating a classification system that suits our situation in consideration of domestic conditions and situations. Regarding the introduction of disability codes, the public-private council is discussing and based on the decision of the council. We plan to finalize the National Statistical Commission deliberation.”

Representative Kang Yoo-jeong criticized the National Statistical Office’s approach, stating, “It is a huge national fraud that the National Statistical Office has negotiated that it will reflect the domestic conditions, and blocks the possibility of establishing a Korean classification system based on international license at the decisive point of view.” She further added, “Even if the National Statistical Office first consults with the WHO, the hat is consistent with the welfare. The game industry and the future of the Republic of Korea should not be handled.”

Kang also noted that the guidelines and license contracts of international organizations do not have direct binding in the domestic law system. She emphasized that excluding certain codes can significantly impact the system or classification structure of ICD-11. If the choice is to follow a code system that suits the domestic situation under certain conditions, it is likely to be considered as ‘adaptation.’

This controversy mirrors ongoing debates in the U.S. about the classification of gaming disorder. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has been cautious in its approach, recognizing “Internet Gaming Disorder” as a condition for further study rather than a formal diagnosis. This approach allows for more research and understanding before making a definitive classification.

In the U.S., the classification of gaming disorder could have profound implications for healthcare, education, and the gaming industry. For instance, recognizing gaming disorder as a legitimate medical condition could lead to increased funding for research and treatment, similar to how the APA’s recognition of Internet Gaming Disorder has spurred interest in understanding and addressing the issue.

However, there are potential counterarguments to consider. Some experts argue that classifying gaming disorder could stigmatize gamers and lead to overdiagnosis. For example, a study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions found that while some individuals may exhibit problematic gaming behaviors, the majority of gamers do not develop a clinical disorder. This suggests that a nuanced approach is necessary, focusing on identifying and treating those who truly need help while avoiding overmedicalization.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding the classification of gaming disorder in South Korea highlights the complexities and challenges of defining and treating behavioral addictions. As the debate continues, it is crucial for policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the gaming industry to collaborate and consider the diverse perspectives and potential impacts of such classifications. This approach can ensure that any decisions made are well-informed, balanced, and beneficial for all stakeholders involved.