IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i3p15..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

China’s online pharmacy: its regulatory policy and a future research agenda for the emerging AI age

Author

Listed:
  • Pinghui Xiao

Abstract

In recent years, China has witnessed a remarkable digital health movement, wherein online pharmacies or drug e-commerce have emerged as disruptive business models. In 2019, China amended the Drug Administration Law to permit the online sale of prescription drugs to customers, albeit with certain limitations. This marked China’s first national congress-level regulatory policy on online pharmacy regulation. The policy comprises two sub-policies: one targeting third-party online platforms involved in drug sales and another aimed at controlled drugs and other drugs under special administration that are prohibited from being sold online. However, this regulatory policy has sparked legal and ethical debates. The first revolves around whether or not online platforms engaged in drug sales can enjoy liability protection and to what extent; while the second centers on an ethical dilemma concerning access to controlled drugs due to their blanket ban on online sales. This article thoroughly examines the aforementioned regulatory policy. Moreover, during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a surge in artificial intelligence (AI) applications within China’s healthcare sector, leading to phenomenal growth of AI-driven online pharmacies staffed by so-called AI doctors and pharmacists. The article outlines a future research agenda for regulating emerging AI-enabled online pharmacies in the post-pandemic age before concluding.

Suggested Citation

  • Pinghui Xiao, 2025. "China’s online pharmacy: its regulatory policy and a future research agenda for the emerging AI age," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 1-15..
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:15.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:15.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.