Consumers need to face the facts on cosmetic treatment risks - ​Jennifer Wallace

Having specialised in non-surgical cosmetic and hairdressing claims for over 12 years, the popularity of non-invasive treatments has been staggering. Needless to say, the quest for the perfect image has been propelled by the ‘Instagram culture’ and celebrities, as well as the ease and affordability of such treatments by comparison to their more invasive surgical counterparts.

Originally, when I first started practising in this field of personal injury, the target demographic for such treatments was pre- and post-menopausal women looking to defy the hands of time. With societal changes, what I have experienced is a sizable increase in the number of male and female clients aged 18-30 getting these treatments.

Regardless of age or sex, the stark reality is consumers are unaware that these treatments carry with them significant risks of injury.

There is also a common misconception amongst the public that someone operating a salon or clinic must automatically have the relevant insurance provisions to protect them, should the worst happen.

Whilst we have some regulation in Scotland of ‘independent clinics’ providing aesthetic treatments, we do not have regulation of those practitioners who fall outwith this definition, i.e. non-medically qualified practitioners.

Botox is a prescribed product; fillers are not and are readily available to anyone wishing to purchase these. Laser and heat-based treatments can be undertaken by essentially anyone willing to invest money in a laser device with little to no training. From chemical peels on your lunch hour to microneedling in a therapist’s home, there is no formal legal requirement to be trained or insured.

It can be a hard pill for clients to swallow when they have been left with life-changing injuries to be told that they might not be able to pursue a claim due to lack of insurance. There can also be significant costs involved in remedial treatments which can be difficult to recover in the event that the practitioner does not have any means to meet the claim.

This month the issue of stricter regulation of the industry was discussed again by the Scottish Government. I hope this further discussion will lead to greater protection for consumers and further regulation of those practitioners who do not fall within the definition of independent clinic. It is perhaps wishful thinking that the recent decision by some celebrities to have their fillers removed, or to go make-up free, will gather traction with the public. I suspect we will see the aesthetic industry continue to grow with a plethora of new treatments coming to the market offering quicker and even better results to consumers. For those considering dipping their toe into the fountain of youth, please do your homework. Attend a practitioner that is regulated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland and that is properly trained and insured to carry out the treatment. Ensure you are fully aware of the risks of the treatment before taking the decision to proceed with it.

Jennifer Wallace is a Partner, Thompsons