 Editorials
from David Williams (Editor)
Editorials from BL#1 and BL#2
Editorials from BL#4 and BL#6
Editorials from BL#7 and BL#9
Editorials from BL#11 and BL#12
Editorials from BL#13 and BL#17
Editorials from BL#18 and BL#20
Editorials from BL#21 and BL#22
Editorials from BL#23 and BL#24
Editorials from BL#25 and BL#26
In the US, cosmetic surgery associations have all worked hard at communicating
best practice on behalf of their members. Following its liposuction
safety campaign, the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
reported only one fatality per 47,415 procedures. The campaign received
much positive media coverage.
In the UK, comparable figures are lacking, because there
are no big, cohesive cosmetic surgery associations. The British Association of
Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons is the largest, with around 150 members. They are
trained in-depth, but as much of their work is reconstructive surgery for the
NHS, they are not representative of general cosmetic surgery. The British Association
of Cosmetic Surgeons has only about 30 members and, therefore, cannot achieve
much on its own.
Most UK cosmetic surgery is in the hands of private clinics,
which show little interest in collectively promoting best practice. These range
from the large health organisation BUPA to the sole practitioner. If
all cosmetic surgery groups and practitioners could sit around the table and
devise rules for membership, agree on a minimum standard of medical qualifications
for various procedures, and invest time demonstrating with unity how cosmetic
surgery helps people, they might find they actually all benefit.
Clinics and private practitioners shouldn’t
kid themselves: poor representation and bad publicity blights them all. A proactive
association serves the public interest and all its members.
Telephone the General Medical Council to check the qualifications
of a cosmetic surgeon in the UK and you will be told whether he or
she appears in the specialist or general register. But you will not
be told whether complaints have been made against the surgeon or whether
the GMC is following these up with an investigation.
I asked a GMC spokesperson whether it was investigating
one particular cosmetic surgeon and was told it was reviewing complaints made
about a cosmetic surgeon but would not confirm his name: "It is not in our
remit to do so."
This is patently unsatisfactory for anyone trying to ensure the cosmetic
surgeon they choose does not have questions about their competence
hanging over them. Their convern is reasonable considering that a
consequence, however small, could be
disfigurement.
The first time you might hear that a doctor or surgeon
has been struck off the register is when the review has been completed in six
months to two years — the length of time a GMC investigation takes. This
period is sufficiently lengthy for other patients to fall victim to the same
practitioner. Of course, allegations can also prove to be be false. That is why
evidence must be gathered to make a case. Rash handling could result in surgeons
being unfairly struck off the register and losing their livelihoods.
But to protect the public it is clear that a solution
must be found. The stakes are far too high for there not to be.
Comments on the Body Language website and magazine can be emailed
to the Editor, david@bodylanguage.net
Letters may be published in a letters page of the website and/or magazine.
Emails with file attachments will not be accepted. |
