NOT IN THE PATIENTS BEST INTERESTS

Our industry has been reeling in shock over the TGA’s recent banning of the words “anti-wrinkle” and “dermal filler” in clinic advertising.

As someone who has had over 35 years working in the health sector, 17 of those at the forefront of the Aesthetics Industry and who has a specialist MBA in Health Service Management, the experience in owning and running health businesses ranging from General Practice, Surgical units, Pharmacy, Aesthetics, and many community services, as well as working alongside health policymakers in the UK, and formerly having a business partner who was both a barrister and a doctor, you can imagine I had a fair bit to say on the proposed changes....

In my view it will be a sad day for the industry if the professionals within it allow these changes to slide in without at least putting up a fight.

While the new rules claim to “make the industry safer” the wider professionals in the industry disagree. In fact, the consensus seems to be that these moves are patient education and informed consent backwards.

?Australia has always had this industry on a tight leash - no drug names, no testimonials and well-managed “before and after photos”. All of these are important, but it should also be noted that this was all in place before the surge of social media platforms, and it has been widely accepted that some of this is impossible to control or police.

For example, the multitude of review platforms now in use means that consumers of our services are just as likely to leave reviews (good and bad) in places that the we may not even know exist. While we can, of course, respond to a review if we see it, we cannot take it down and nor should we be held responsible for them.?

The other side to this argument is that reviews are a good thing. They keep the business transparent; they ensure good service as no one wants a bad review, and any business receiving unsatisfactory reviews will either be starved of customers or clean up their act. Surely then, reviews are a not only a good thing but a better policing mechanism than the limited resources of the TGA or APHRA?

The idea of not being able to talk about the services we deliver in any terms that patients recognise, on our websites, social media, print press or online directories is simply ludicrous. We should be challenging the authority of any government body to prevent us from using our normal English language.

“Anti-Wrinkle” and “dermal fillers” are actions of the treatment not drug names - just like "pain killer" and "antibiotic"

?If we are not allowed to advertise our services at all, and not allowed to refer to the terms like anti-wrinkle, dermal fillers and others that our clients commonly use, then several things will result;?

1. Clients will still search the terms they know and, instead of finding credible Australian company sites, will find overseas information that will most likely not be referring to the products we use (because there are hundreds of brands worldwide that we don’t have here) and which will be giving advice that is not relevant.?

2. The overseas sites may be in countries that are not at all regulated and may not give accurate advice or even doctored images. Morevover there will be no accountability or right of recourse.

3. Clients will have reduced opportunities to access credible, relevant and locally controlled pre-education from our businesses before they attend the clinic. I am 100% for client education and informed consent and this needs to start at the exploratory stages. The TGA seem to be oblivious that this currently available education stage

• Weans out those people who are put off by the information that they read
• Use this information to iform the questions they should ask their practitiiner in their consultation?

4. Lack of prior reading and knowledge for clients may also mean they are at a greater risk of making an on-the-spot decision at the consultation.

?5. A consultation with a potential patient who has had no prior opportunity to learn about specific treatments that the business offers will place more pressure on both parties. It may also waste everyone's time if the client is looking for some other completely different treatment not offered at that location.?

IMPORTANTS QUESTIONS?

1. Why is the TGA biased against an industry that does much to improve the self-image and self-confidence of their clients? ?

2. The TGA claims they are protecting the public - but from what? From awareness of the treatments we offer? If so, are they going to be given additional powers to ban magazine articles, TV and newspaper reporting, and Celebrities from talking about these treatments too?

?3. Have the TGA/APHRA over-stepped the mark in prohibiting words that are not drug names but simple English Language. Is it legal for the TGA to ban “smooth foreheads” “kissable lips” and all the general describing words we use in the beauty industry as a whole?

?4. The medi-aesthetic industry is now a mature one that employs tens of thousands of people. The TGA is threatening the livelihood not only of Cosmetic Injectors but also clinic owners, therapists and other practitioners who work alongside injectors and together form the interconnected viability of these businesseses.

?5. Many clinics have been trading for over 20 years (my own clinic has been trading 27 years) which amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment in websites, SEO, social media, magazines, directories etc - all of which were deemed legal, approved and “policed” in the interest of patient safety and education. Now we are being instructed to delete all this so are the TGA and APHRA now claiming they had this wrong all that time? Will they compensate us for our loss of investment and inevitable loss of business?

?6. The TGA and APHRA are enthusiastic to quote the rare incidents of Body Dysmorphia Disorder (BDD) as being problematic. However, the prevalence of this is around 2.4% in the population. That 2.4 % is almost equally split between men and women (2.2% v 2.5%) and covers all forms of body dysmorphia. If BDD was te driver of our businesses (which it is not!) then all clinics would see an equal split of men and women yet the majority between see less than 15% men. .

?7. What about the other "missing" body dysmorphic men who are not in cosmetic clinis. Where are they? Are they in the tattoo studios? the gym? the piercing shop? So who is policing those?

8. Are women considered so stupid and so incapable of making wise choices that choice must be removed from them but allowed for men? It seems then that the TGA and APHRA are penalising women for wanting to feel attractive and to preserve their looks longer.

?9. Are we turning into a nanny state? Have we lost the right to choose what we want for our own bodies?

10 The Plastic Surgeons now have to submit women seeking cosmetic surgery for a psychiatric evaluation first. Personally, I would find this a demeaning process. Are the TGA/APHRA saying that the 97.5% of women who don’t have BDD have to justify their request just so that maybe the other 2.5% will be filtered out? If so, having worked alongside cosmetic surgery services I can speak with some authority when I tell you that it’s relatively easy to spot the BDD client at consultation and steer them away from surgery using several methods of making the surgery unattainable without needing to put the rest of the patients through a psychiatric evaluation.

?11. Are the TGA/APRAH naive enough to believe that the BDD patient will just walk away and say, “ok I'll not do it then”? Far from it - inevitably, they go from doctor to doctor till they perfect their story, hide their disorder, or simply go overseas for surgery.

FEEDBACK

Aesthetics is known to be a competitive industry, but if there was ever a time when we needed to band together and speak as one group, this is it! We also need to engage our customers to n the discussions too.

This blog represents my thoughts as a clinic owner and client. You will likely have more thoughts and it's important to voice them. Please feel free to add your comments below.

??In summary, the new guidelines will mean that patients will have;

• LESS certainty of the treatments available prior to attending the clinic

• LESS information about the risks, benefits and potential outcomes before attending the clinic
• LESS prior knowledge about treatments before they attend a clinic and therefore less choice of treatments and less opportunity to prepare questions
• INCREASED likelihood of exposure to overseas information that will not be relevant and could be misleading.
• INCREASED exposure and reliance on unregulated information from overseas websites
• INCREASED exposure to unregulated before and after photos from overseas

Join the conversation.... what are your thoughts?