There has lately been considerable grumbling within the medical profession itself, about some of the self-promoting (read advertising) methods that some doctors have been adopting to try and gain some advantage in their highly competitive field of cosmetic dermatology.

In the People, Places and Events section of this issue (page 14) there is a report on the Florida Health bill that the governor of that state signed into law on June 19, 2000, making it mandatory for persons who perform “electrolysis or electrology using laser or light-based hair removal,” to do so only under the direct supervision and responsibility of a licensed physician. The irony here, of course, lies in the suggestion that laser hair removal is a branch or form of electrolysis (which it certainly is not) that can now be performed only by medical doctors or their appointees.

Keeping this first news story in mind gives special significance to another “doctors and hair removal” story, on page 17, about the Internet marketing ploy of a “physician practice management company” in Florida called myskinMD, that claims to be “The World’s Most Comprehensive Online Skin Care Resource . . . representing 3000 North American board-certified dermatologists.” If one were to judge myskinMD by its descriptions of ‘electrolysis’ and ‘laser hair removal,’ one would be left with the impression that the entire 3000 dermatologists in this physician Network favor laser hair removal over what they call “painful,” “tedious,” “scarring” electrolysis.

A further example of the ethically-borderline self-promotion tactics lately employed by some doctors was reported in the May 2000 issue of Hair Route. In that story, titled “New York dermatologists slam dunk electrolysis,” we had doctors promoting laser as “the most important of all methods currently available,” while labeling electrolysis as “tedious,” “very painful,” “not permanent,” and “a barbaric thing of the past.”

Electrologists are not the only ones to notice how desperate the cosmetic dermatologists are getting these days. An article in the prestigious New York Times, on July 2, 2000, brought to light what many “insiders” in cosmetic surgery already knew – that some doctors trade professional services for media coverage. Journalists reported that they were offered “everything from complimentary laser hair removal to free surgical procedures.”

The news story was too much for the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS). On July 20, that organization issued a press release with the heading, “Ethics and Plastic Surgery: Doctors Should Adhere to Higher Standards.” About the unethical conduct described in the Times, ASAPS president, Daniel C. Morello, MD, said: “This type of unprofessional behavior is an embarrassment to members of the ASAPS and it is in direct violation of the professional Code of Ethics that we have pledged to maintain.”

“ASAPS members are expressly prohibited from giving anything of value to a representative of the media in anticipation of, or in return for, professional publicity,” said Dr. Morello.

Other unethical practices identified and prohibited by ASAPS include: Promotional use of before and after photographs that use different lighting, poses or photographic techniques to misrepresent results; and, Exaggerated claims intended to create false or unjustified expectations of favorable surgical results.

Hello! Hello! Is there anyone left out there that still does not recognize the real threat to professional electrologists? Dr. Ricardo Azziz, a friend of the electrolysis community said it best at the October 1997 convention of the American Electrology Association, in Orlando: “The medical profession today is under a lot of stress and strain to generate income, and if you think the plastic surgeons, the dermatologists and the AMA are going to let you [electrologists] take income from them – I will sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.”

– Derek R. Copperthwaite