A DRAFT code of conduct proposed by cosmetic surgeons has been rejected by the competition watchdog on the grounds it fails to provide consumers with sufficient protection.
The draft determination was handed down yesterday by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as the consumer advocate group Choice was preparing to release its investigation into cosmetic surgery practices, which found what it described as "appalling examples of unprofessional conduct" in the industry.
Breast augmentation, liposuction and Botox were requested by three women engaged by Choice to consult 30 cosmetic surgery clinics across NSW and Queensland.
The investigation found that many of the clinics failed to inform the women of all the risks of surgery, the standard of proof of practitioners' qualifications was patchy and that some providers engaged in coercive behaviour to persuade the women to undergo surgery.
The woman seeking breast augmentation was told by one practitioner that the proposed surgery was necessary before offering her a price discount if she agreed to have before and after photographs published on the internet. At another clinic she was told she would increase her chances of finding a partner if she went ahead with the procedure and at three clinics she was given brochures offering loans to fund the surgery, which is not covered by Medicare or most private health insurers.
The majority of clinics approved liposuction - which is potentially life-threatening - and even attempted to "upsell" additional cosmetic surgery.
Choice's Christopher Zinn said people considering invasive cosmetic treatments needed to be aware that the difference between a cosmetic surgeon and a plastic surgeon could be up to eight years specialist training, and the largely unregulated industry was clearly in need of stronger legislation.
But the Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery has dismissed Choice's findings as biased, with its president, Dr Daniel Fleming, saying no proof was provided that any of the clinics visited in the survey were run by members of his college. In its written response to submissions to the ACCC, the college accused the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons of making spurious and undermining claims as part of an ongoing turf war.
The ACCC's chairman, Graeme Samuel, said disclosure requirements over practitioners' qualifications and experience were still insufficient and the code lacked a clear transparent complaints handling process. There were also concerns over the industry's use of testimonials, he said.