On 12th February 2019, the regulation of the non-surgical cosmetic industry was discussed in a Westminster Hall debate, with several MPs stating that regulation does not go far enough to protect the public. I was asked to give my opinion on the debate back then, which I had waited for with high hopes and expectations, optimistic that maybe the ball that had slowed considerably might just start rolling again and gathering momentum.
I commented back then that ‘It was great to see the MPs taking an interest, particularly from Mr Costa, but the arguments raised were not anything new’ (Kilgariff, 2019). One of the points raised was how the media is portraying aesthetic treatments to the young and vulnerable, and how the young seem to regard aesthetic treatments and procedures as nothing more serious than popping out to get their hair done.
It is interesting that only this week, leading fashion houses Alexander McQueen, Gucci and Saint Laurent, among others, have announced that they will no longer be using models under the age of 18 years to portray adult fashion (BBC News, 2019). Even prominent fashion magazine Vogue last year made the editorial decision to stop recruiting under 18s for their publication (Scott, 2018). At the time of writing this column, it is mental health awareness week, which makes me wonder why in these times of patients seeking the squarest jawline or the poutiest lips to flaunt on social media, there is still pretty much free reign for absolutely anybody to set up and start administering aesthetic and cosmetic procedures and treatments.
I have had many discussions over the past few weeks with colleagues regarding the Care Quality Commission's (CQC's) recent decision to regulate thread lifting treatments, categorising them as surgical procedures.
» The more awareness we can gather, the better the outcomes will be for practitioners and patients «
This may be seen by some as yet another hurdle to jump over, and those who are not associated with a regulatory body might be seen to have a head start over those who are, as registrants may suspend providing this treatment until they are fully registered to provide it. Nevertheless, I welcome this decision, which brings us one step closer to protecting our patients, as well as our own practices. Discussions that I have had with the CQC suggest that, while they only oversee those who fall under their regulation, they do pass on the details of non-regulated practitioners to the relevant authorities—namely the Police and Environmental Health.
I am sure that like me, many readers will have entered dialogue with their own MPs to help to raise awareness of the desperate need for greater regulation in this sector. I applaud this, as the more awareness we can gather, the better the outcomes will be for all practitioners and patients.
This week also saw the return of Mr Costa to Westminster Halls for a second debate on medical aesthetics, who, this time, gave the impression that he was supportive of beauty therapists practising in medical aesthetics, stating:
I mentioned a moment ago that this debate should not centre on the conversation about medics or non-medics carrying out these procedures; I believe it is fine for properly qualified and regulated beauticians to be able to offer them.
The BACN, which is still the largest organisation for nurses working within aesthetic practice, is working tirelessly to overhaul and update its educational framework and pathway, while promoting the best evidence-based practice. We are working hard with Government ministers and the Department of Health and Social Care, which is pushing for tighter regulation of injectable treatments. As a cup-half-full kind of a person, I wait with anticipation.