The medicolegal issues surrounding telepathology and telecytology in Japan
have been partly resolved since the government declared that telediagnosis
in these fields using a microscope is essentially a medical practice betwee
n doctors. Thus it does not contravene article 20 of the law pertaining to
medical practice in Japan, which states that there must be an actual face-t
o-face encounter between the doctor performing any diagnostic or treatment
episode and the patient. It is, however, only beginning to be recognized th
at the medicolegal issues surrounding telepathology and telecytology depend
on factors such as the type of system used (e.g. active versus passive). I
n an active diagnostic system, the telepathologist or telecytopathologist c
an control a robotic microscope at the remote site, while in a passive diag
nostic system the telepathologist or telecytopathologist makes the diagnosi
s based on the microscope images that have been selected, and transmitted,
by someone in the remote hospital. In the former case the interpreting tele
pathologist or telecytopathologist must assume most of the responsibility f
or the diagnostic process, while in the latter more responsibility must be
assumed by those at the remote site. The duties and responsibilities of all
participants in the telediagnostic process, whatever the system employed,
must be determined. We have established working guidelines for telepatholog
ical and telecytological diagnoses to help achieve this and hence ensure sa
fe and effective clinical practice.