‘Irony is wasted on the stupid’
Registered healthcare professionals have tirelessly tried to convey to the UK government for more than a decade that only a doctor, dentist or nurse should perform medical aesthetic procedures. Our pleas continue to fall on deaf ears. Aesthetic medicine is an important branch of modern-day healthcare but ironically, after the recent launch of the government's patient safety campaign, we are another step closer to demedicalisation.
It is both ironic and tragic that the UK government blatantly refuses to acknowledge that aesthetic medicine is a serious branch of medicine and that only registered healthcare professionals should be involved in the delivery of such care. Not only does the campaign fail to protect the British public, it offends and belittles every dedicated doctor, dentist and registered nurse practicing within the field.
Last month, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) launched the campaign in association with Save Face and the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP). I feel confident in stating that it is highly probable that the government chose not to be guided by the strong ethical stance of Save Face with regard to who should be carrying out medical aesthetic procedures in the UK. Instead, the leaders of the campaign have decided to support the inclusion and regulation of non-medics—such as beauty therapists and other lay people—within a field of medicine.
In last month's Collier column, I reported that the JCCP had recently expressed concerns about medical aesthetic practitioners referring to service users as ‘patients' rather than ‘customers’ or ‘consumers’. It is noteworthy that the government campaign has been labelled a ‘consumer’ awareness campaign.
Those who support the inclusion of non-medics in medical aesthetics often insinuate that healthcare professionals specialising in the field are guilty of professional protectionism. I am guilty as charged. I will continue to fight to undermine the development of this new breed of practitioner—de facto practitioners with no appropriate background in healthcare and no degree in medicine, dentistry or nursing. I will not support the integration of beauty therapists or other lay people into a field of medicine. While I concede that education and regulation of non-medics may improve patient safety in the short term, it can never be comparable to the depth of knowledge, skill and experience of a healthcare professional. A module on toxin or dermal fillers at any level does not produce a healthcare professional. The role of the medical aesthetic practitioner is highly advanced and autonomous, and I have always advocated that all registered healthcare professionals should have a minimum of 5 years post-registration experience before entering the field. I believe that more than ever we need to protect our professional role in aesthetic medicine. The Government has behaved hubristically in its attempt to protect the public and has shown disregard and disrespect to a field of medicine and to the healthcare professionals who are dedicated to the important work they do.
It would seem that no-one is discussing urgent legislation to put an end to this absurdity. The powers that be continue to work towards the inclusion and regulation of beauty therapists and others. I had hoped against all hope that the Scottish government would lead the way forward with phase two of regulation and put a stop to the unregulated and unaccountable practice; however, I believe that they too are in favour of legitimising and regulating non-medics with the development of a modular framework of study.
The DHSC ‘consumer’ campaign has been created to help make members of the public aware of the risks associated with elective ‘cosmetic procedures’. I find this terminology ambiguous. The word ‘cosmetic’ immediately trivialises and dilutes the seriousness of medical aesthetic procedures. The word cosmetic is synonymous with beauty. The message to the public should have been stronger, more transparent and more concise.
The DHSC has offered a ‘Cosmetic Procedures Top Tips’ resource sheet, to be cut out and kept for reference. It advises the public to check out the premises for basic hygiene principles like hand washing and sterile equipment. But what does the average member of the public know about infection control measures? Surely, the government should have stated that medical aesthetic procedures should only be carried out in a clinical/medical environment. Furthermore, the resource advises that the public should choose a reputable, safe and qualified practitioner who is trained in the procedure you are undertaking. Qualified in exactly what? A butcher, a baker or a candle stick maker?
This type of language is very misleading and open to complete misinterpretation. Why does the information sheet not clearly state that the practitioner should be a qualified healthcare professional: a doctor, dentist or registered nurse?
The government has ensured that the information is protective and inclusive of non-medical stakeholders, predominantly beauty therapists who are delivering medical aesthetic services in a variety of non-clinical environments.
Unbelievably, the information states that you should avoid participating in group treatments or events involving alcohol. The Government's choice of the word ‘avoid’ here makes this very weak advice. This is a serious issue, and the public should be aware of the severity. Furthermore, it advises that you should speak to a ‘professional’ about the outcomes you can expect from a procedure. What type of professional? Why will the government not commit to saying a healthcare professional?
I assume that the term ‘professional’ has been left open, with no clarification, because it includes all who currently inject within the sector. The campaign is anything but informative, it does little to protect the public, it supports beauty therapists and other lay people practising within our field; therefore it demedicalises true aesthetic medicine.
Finally, as Alberto Costa MP continues his quest to champion for greater regulation of ‘cosmetic’ procedures in the UK, I tentatively listened to the latest Westminster Hall debate. It was truly abysmal. Mr Costa called for the regulation of non-medics, stating that there was no need to be a medic to work in the UK beauty industry. He called for action to regulate and licence beauty therapists, saying that we must not stifle the beauty industry; we want it to grow. Clearly, Mr Costa has been grossly ill informed. Medical aesthetics is not part of the beauty industry; it continues to be a discipline of healthcare within the realms of traditional medicine—doesn't it? I have a nursing degree, a post graduate diploma and a Master's degree in Aesthetic Medicine, I have been a registered nurse for 35 years. I take great offence that a beauty therapist is considered to have the essential prerequisites to enter a very complex field of medicine.