On 1 March, several video game publishers’ associations called on the World Health Organization (WHO) to reverse its decision to introduce, in the next edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), an entry for “video game addiction”. This new entry was also widely discussed in our first editorial.
Among these associations are the International Software Federation of Europe (ISFE), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and many associations from different countries (United Kingdom, Brazil, Korea, Canada, etc.).
To do so, they base their argument on an article soon to be published in the “Journal of Behavioral Addictions“. This article, signed by 36 researchers from different universities (Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Stockholm…), is titled “A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution“. To summarise it briefly, the researchers do not deny the existence of a form of “pathological” gaming, but try to make people understand the real risk of over-diagnosis if the term addiction were to be adopted, as well as the far too great lack of scientific consensus and formal evidence on the question. As the subject is not currently studied in enough depth, whether through transparent studies or through a better definition of the subject, the authors conclude that including this diagnostic entry in the next International Classification of Diseases would show a lack of caution given the societal impact it could have.
This is the position we have held for a long time in our 3-6-9-12 association. To prevent children and teenagers from being at risk of diagnoses made too hastily, or of being overwhelmed by drug prescriptions, researchers must work on this subject in greater depth, as it is currently as much a clinical issue as a political and economic one. As Serge Tisseron repeats on his blog: “Making pathological video gaming a category of addiction will obviously not multiply the number of psychologists, general practitioners and psychiatrists able to deal with it. On the other hand, pharmaceutical laboratories will soon convince general practitioners that a simple answer can quickly reassure the parents who bring their video-game-playing child to a consultation, not to say get rid of them: a drug prescription reimbursed by the social security system as a recognised illness. In less than five years, we risk witnessing a scandal similar to the one over Ritalin prescriptions, and not only in the United States. Some of those who today welcome the creation of ‘gaming disorder’ will undoubtedly regret it. It will be too late.”
OD
Olivier is a clinical psychologist, currently writing his doctoral thesis at Paris VII University (CRPMS). He specialises in digital technology and children.
