Aesthetic standards
WHEN Charice Pempengco -- the little Philippine singer with the big voice -- was about to join the cast of the TV series Glee, her choice of preparation for the show shocked and outraged fans and the public: The then 18-year-old got a Botox injection in order to look "fresh" for the camera. Even entertainment media critics were astonished by the need for someone so young to get such a procedure. But the United States is seeing an increase in the demand for Botox, from children as young as 13. In Britain, aesthetic surgery increases by five per cent annually, in spite of the recession there.
Whether or not these measures make sense to people who don't believe in aesthetic surgery, the fact is that patients do have a right to as safe and proper a treatment as elective surgery can afford. Unfortunately, the boom in aesthetic procedures in this country has not been complemented by the assurance of a professional medical practice. Patients go to beauty centres for Botox injections and surgery, even though the person conducting the procedure may not be medically qualified to do the job. As a result, assumed "simple" Botox or liposuction procedures have been known to go awry -- paralysing the patient or sending him or her into an irreversible coma, if not death.
Which is why the health minister's pledge to regulate the aesthetic industry and provide guidelines for aesthetic practitioners could not have come too soon. Including these practitioners in the Medical Act 1971 would require them to be registered with the Health Ministry; for which they would have to be qualified and professionally trained. The proposed regulations, including making it compulsory for practitioners to take up a special syllabus to qualify, will at least ensure that they are properly trained for that specific procedure. In the meantime, the ministry should apply and strictly enforce Section 33 of the Medical Act, which makes it illegal for unregistered medical centres to use the terms "clinic", "dispensary" or "hospital", or even use a stethoscope or hypodermic needle, so that people won't be induced into believing the person running such a place is qualified to practise medicine or surgery.
Which is why the health minister's pledge to regulate the aesthetic industry and provide guidelines for aesthetic practitioners could not have come too soon. Including these practitioners in the Medical Act 1971 would require them to be registered with the Health Ministry; for which they would have to be qualified and professionally trained. The proposed regulations, including making it compulsory for practitioners to take up a special syllabus to qualify, will at least ensure that they are properly trained for that specific procedure. In the meantime, the ministry should apply and strictly enforce Section 33 of the Medical Act, which makes it illegal for unregistered medical centres to use the terms "clinic", "dispensary" or "hospital", or even use a stethoscope or hypodermic needle, so that people won't be induced into believing the person running such a place is qualified to practise medicine or surgery.
At the same time, people who are considering aesthetic surgery and procedures should think very carefully about the risks presented by injecting a toxin into the body or going for elective invasive surgery. Exposure to anaesthetics and the risk of infection leading to death are real risks, for which luck and statistics might not be in one's favour. The value of a life can go beyond mere aesthetics.
0 comments:
Post a Comment