(HARA
Eiji, PPPC President)
While
it is commonly said that the banning on internet sales of medicines has been
lifted since this June as result of discussions for the past several years, as
a matter of fact, it was far from “lifting” the ban.
l Although Prime
Minister Abe had announced an entire liberalization of internet sales of
general medicines at the beginning, the banning on sales of 28 items recently
switched from prescription medicines has been maintained.
l Further, while it was
not reported widely, the banning on internet sales of prescription medicines has
remained untouched.
While
the government’s explanation is a “high risk of using internet,” there seems to
be no clear background on such an explanation.
l It is indeed necessary
to confirm customer’s anamnesis or possible side effects upon purchasing
high-risk medicines. Still, the internet should be more apt to confirm plural
checking points than over-the-counter.
l While there is such a
discussion as “it is important that pharmacists make judgment by using the five
senses through face-to-face sales” (message of subcommittee chairman Igarashi
read in a meeting of the Industrial Competitiveness Council on Oct 29, 2013),
it is unknown what kind of judgments are to be made as result of exercising the
five senses.
After
all, it was nothing but preservation of interests of traditional pharmacies
under the nominal reasoning of safety control.
And
now, similar discussions are going on with internet sales of real estates.
The
focal point of discussions has been the “explanation on important matters”
based on the Real Estate Business Law.
Under
the current framework, it is provided that
l An officer-in-charge
must give face-to-face explanations on the important points in the contracts.
l And documents must be
handed on that occasion (e-mail not admitted).
It
means that any explanations through internet cannot be accepted.
Readers
may think that “there should be small needs for internet in real estate
dealings because people usually do on-site checks on the properties,” but it is
not always the case.
For
example, there are quite a few needs for processing such procedures as
receiving explanations on the important points in the distance afterward even
though they actually went to see the candidate housings in case of short-notice
transfers of timeless business persons.
Also,
even in the case of short-distance moving, there are needs for internet
explanations for such reasons as “please explain it via videophone because we
want to share it in family,” or “we prefer answers by e-mail rather than
over-the-counter in order to keep record.”
However,
the current legal framework declines such voices and states that explanations
on important points must accompany “face-to-face” processes.
According
to voices that such regulation should be relooked, discussions started in the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in its study group
since April 2014.
Nonetheless,
looking at the minutes of the meetings, there are quite many opinions opposed
to internet sales for the following reasons.
l Because people tend to
look down (to read the documents) in case of videophone, it becomes difficult to
estimate the extent of understanding by reading the customers’ faces.
l Because the picture of
videophone is not necessarily clear, ID duplication of officer-in-charge of
real estate business cannot be prevented.
Here,
let’s give it a little consideration.
l People equally tend to
“look down” in an over-the-counter dealing as well,
l Because many people
haven’t looked at the ID cards of officers in the first place, there is likely
the case that we wouldn’t notice whether the ID is duplicated (countermeasures
to duplication or imposture should be taken through different channels).
Doesn’t
it sound like the discussion of “using the five senses…” at the time of
medicines?
At
present, the government is soliciting public comments on the study group’s
“interim report” (until August 22). But unfortunately, it seems that the
discussion is heading to a partial lifting of the banning on internet dealing
of real estates in accordance with the cautious opinions mentioned above (for
example, admission of remote contract of renting, etc.).
Note
that this is still at the point of “interim report”, and it is strongly hoped
there will be advancements in the discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment