home
subscribe
advertise
about us
Electrolysis, the only permanent hair removal method |
|
|
|
|
Letters to the Editors
Laser is putting Aussies Laser has gained a foothold in most countries and will continue to do so because of the lack of expertise shown by many operators who do not specialize in electrolysis but merely work in a beauty salon and have an epilator under the counter for the occasional client who walks through the door. Unfortunately, this sort of practice is damaging our industry as much as the introduction of laser. Many of the new clients that come to us have previously received treatment from such unskilled operators, and most of these clients have an intense fear of the electrolysis – resulting from the levels of unnecessary pain they suffered at the hands of non-professionals. Fortunately, once they are settled and the treatment has begun, they are amazed at how little discomfort they must go through. One of our clients – going to a beauty salon for almost 15 years, for simple, primary hair removal – had spent thousands of dollars on hundreds of treatments and achieved next to nothing for her pain. At present, the greatest threat to our profession here in Australia is the introduction of the “permanent hair reduction” systems that are being advertised everywhere. They have reduced our clientele dramatically on the promise of “quick-and-easy permanent hair removal,” although the only thing that seems to be permanent on the clients that have returned to us over the past year is permanent skin damage! The laser systems appear to destroy the entire acid mantle, making it almost impossible to effect the results we could achieve before they had changed over to the laser modality. It is very difficult to educate these clients when our own government will not police the industry and is licensing laser hair removal clinics to anyone who is a doctor – even doctors of psychology. We have approached our Dept. of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading, but they say the dispute seems to be about “business principles” rather than “consumer discontent,” and that is not something that they can address unless many consumers actually lodge complaints. Nobody wants to take a stand in a regulatory manner, and our industry is going downhill. Ainsley and I will ride it out (since we own the practice outright and do not pay rental for our premises or equipment), but many other businesses that specialize in electrolysis will fail because they are paying large rents and leasing their machines and equipment. It is a sorry thing to see this happening right in front of our eyes, but we are almost powerless to alter the course of events without the assistance of those with political clout. However, we have made this our mission, and we intend to do whatever we can to assist the electrolysis community come to grips with this threat to our livelihood.
— Shirley Hogue & Ainsley Israel
Editors’ note: Many of the current happenings in Australia have been addressed in past issues of International Hair Route during the last half-dozen “laser years,” and it is to be hoped that some of the information reported on its pages will provide useful answers to similar problems now being experienced abroad. As is well known, the AEA is still actively fighting the laser threat. Recently it has been writing to all physicians in the U.S.A. who use “permanent hair removal” in their advertising for laser hair removal (with copies of each letter going to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as well as to the appropriate state medical board), and the results have been rewarding. In the U.S., each state has its own advertising statutes that physicians must adhere to. Applying the term “permanent hair removal” to laser modality constitutes fraudulent and misleading advertising, and the medical boards have been most cooperative. The physicians are advertising “permanent hair reduction.”
Linda, where are you? But I can’t totally blame all my problems on electrolysis. I typed on different PCs for 15 years and no one ever advised against poor work habits. Do you travel and lecture, because this is a subject that everyone should hear about.
— Marilynn Kosisko
Editor’s note:
New Standards pose undue In the AEA’s Standards for Cleaning and Sterilization of Instruments/Items and Other Safety Precautions it is stated that needles are required to be “single-use, pre-sterilized, and disposable.” Worded in a way that approves only “disposable” needles, and eliminates properly sterilized “reusable” needles, the changed Standards impose unnecessary hardship on those of us who practice multiple-needle galvanic epilation. In the multiple-needle galvanic procedure, the most important precaution is the use of shielded shank needles which are not available in disposable needles: We do our clients a disservice if we treat them with inappropriate needles. The other concern I have is the practical one of cost. Adding the cost of thirty-two disposable needles to the price of each client’s treatment would be totally unreasonable. Multiple-needle electrologists would have to price themselves right out of business if they were compelled to comply with the new rules. To ignore the Standards would raise the even more important question: If we don’t use disposable needles, are we risking liability by using sterilized, shielded shank, permanent needles that are not approved by the AEA? Will our malpractice insurance cover us in the event of a lawsuit over any problem? Today’s clever lawyers, using the AEA’s standard on “disposable needles only,” could base their case on that one point to prove an electrologist incompetent, even though stringent sterilization routines were followed. We all properly sterilize our tweezers, eye shields and positive electrode holders. Sterilization of needles, whether by the manufacturer or by the electrologist, when done correctly, still gives you a sterile needle. Our clients trust us to follow safe, effective sterilization procedures, yet the AEA, by excluding the acceptance of properly sterilized needles from its “Standards” casts doubt on our integrity and professionalism. Setting aside the cost factor, do multiple-needle practitioners risk causing surface skin burns on their clients by using disposable needles that don’t have shielded shank protection? — or do they run the risk of losing their insurance coverage by using the correct needles for the multiple needle galvanic modality? Practitioners of modern, multiple-needle galvanic epilation are admittedly few in number, but we do hold a legitimate and worthy place within the profession. It is unfair to put us in a position of operating outside the rules of our own professional association. I would be interested in hearing the views of other electrologists.
— Shirley Hurtubise
Editors’ Note: “Not following the standards of her professional association would not void Ms. Hurtubise’s insurance coverage. However, if the association’s Standards state that a practitioner must only use factory sterilized disposable needles, I think Ms. Hurtubise has a good point. Although she would still have protection under her policy, a “clever lawyer” could plead doom and gloom over her failure to follow her own association’s Standards. But, it could also be argued that she follows proper sterile techniques as outlined by the American Medical Association, or something like it.” Speaking of loyalty Dear Editors: I want to thank the Hair Route for maintaining a truly objective and very educational format over the years. I have read every issue I have ever received from cover to cover, and every single article.
– Dale Bailey
Editors’ note:
Retiring from the scene I have given myself permission to retire after a year of soul searching. I am looking forward to reintroducing myself to my golf clubs, perhaps taking a class or two and definitely some old-fashioned physical fitness – much neglected in the last four years. Thank you for a wonderful publication that I looked forward to reading and which I have every copy that you published from the inception. I am going to give them to one of my colleagues. There were some pretty interesting articles that will never go out of reading style.
— Mollie L. Braverman
Dear Hair Route:
– Kitty Vota
Dear Editors: Best wishes to you for the years ahead.
– Jeannie H. Shapley
Editors’ note: |
|
Home
Subscribe
Calendar
Classified Ads
National
Associations
Consumer Info
|
