“The serious harm that has been exposed recently in the cosmetic surgery industry is unacceptable, and we want to work with other jurisdictions to make sure it cannot continue to occur,” Mr Foley said in a statement.
The problems with the cosmetic surgery industry have been well known by authorities for decades with a series of reviews and parliamentary inquiries conducted as far back as 1999, which went nowhere.
The 108-page consulting document canvasses a series of options, including restricting the title ‘surgeon’ under National Law, with feedback sought on who would be eligible to use it.
Other options include strengthening the existing framework through administrative rather than legislative mechanisms, undertaking major public information campaigns and increasing provider liability for non-economic damages.
There is a fourth option of maintaining the status quo, but sources close to the state and federal government said this was unlikely.
The consulting document said ministers were “particularly” concerned that the practice of cosmetic surgery and widespread use of the informal title ‘cosmetic surgeon’ may be strongly and disproportionately associated with these risks and harm.
It outlined a series of case studies, including a GP who performed cosmetic surgery and failed to obtain informed consent before performing various procedures. One patient alleged she arrived at the practitioner’s surgery to undergo a breast augmentation and received no hospital gown or sedation and was in ‘excruciating pain’, stating: “He sewed me up and sent me out into another room. No observations were taken, and a staff member gave me Endone. I was told I could leave immediately after the procedure.”
The report has also highlighted an information and power asymmetry between patients and practitioners, which was contributing to the risk of consumer harm. “It can be difficult for the public to obtain information from neutral and informed sources, particularly as most cosmetic surgery consumers obtain information about prospective procedures from the practitioners that perform those procedures and from social media,” it says.
“This RIS is interested to discover how widespread cosmetic surgery resulting in significant harm and complications may be, and whether medical practitioners’ qualifications are contributing to potential harm.”
It said advertising and marketing material must comply with a series of laws, adding that breaches of the law for advertising offences can incur financial penalties of $5000 for each advertising offence for an individual and $10,000 for a body corporate. The planned overhaul could see the penalties increase to $60,000 for an individual and $120,000 for a body corporate.
Health ministers are also proposing to ban testimonials that were false, misleading or deceptive, offer a gift or inducement without stating the terms and conditions, create an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment or encourage the unnecessary use of health services.
Loading
Mark Ashton, a professor of surgery at the University of Melbourne and the former president of the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons, and who came forward as part of the media investigation, said he welcomed the inquiry. “Hopefully it will, for the first time, allow transparency of surgical training and qualifications against a national benchmark, and allow patients to accurately determine how much training and surgery the person intending to operate upon them has actually done.”
Health regulation consultant Dr Margaret Faux, who has worked in the sector for 40 years, and describes the cosmetic treatments industry as like “the Wild West, but without the sheriffs” said it was a welcome start to protect patients.
“The law that regulates health practitioners in this country is littered with imprecise language and poorly defined terms. So protecting the term ‘surgeon’ will be insufficient for the purposes of enforcement. What is required is a clear prohibition against misuse of the term, with enforceable penalties,” she said.
“Legislation is only ever as good as its ability to be enforced and currently, investigations and enforcement of health practitioners is indiscriminate, often targeting good doctors through ‘robodebt’ like processes, leaving rogue doctors untouched. The consultation process should be broadened to include submissions on how to swiftly and decisively enforce breaches of any new laws.”
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
