LEAVING the aesthetic medicine industry to regulate itself is not a feasible solution, a senior Ministry of Health (MOH) official suggested in a paper published recently in an international journal.

Dr Harold Tan, MOH's deputy director (Clinical Assurance & Audit), argued that professional and ethical standards in an unregulated industry might take a hit in this lucrative business.

'Health regulators and policy-makers should bear in mind that the physical and socio-psychological well-being of the public may be at stake if the industry grows out of control,' he wrote.

His article, Aesthetic Medicine: A Health Regulator's Perspective, was published in Clinical Governance: An International Journal last year.

Written before the recent debate on aesthetic treatments here, the piece examined how developed countries like Canada, Britain and Australia handled the issue, but did not refer specifically to Singapore.

Dr Tan recommended regulations covering aspects such as where the procedures should be performed, the equipment used and the training that practitioners should have.

Training, he said, should be restricted to procedures that are 'scientifically proven to be effective', he said. Botox and laser depigmentation are examples.

Regulation should also cover how aesthetic treatments are advertised to prevent false claims and professional misrepresentation, he added.

Noting that the media could be responsible for whipping up public demand for aesthetic medicine and perverting public opinions of beauty, he recommended that advertisements for aesthetic treatments be subject to regulatory scrutiny before their release.

Dr Tan also made a case for a professional register of trained and competent practitioners and for public education.

Although he did not recommend directions for Singapore's aesthetic medicine industry, his piece sheds light on possible regulatory approaches being considered by the Health Ministry.

Last month, the future of the beauty business came under focus when health officials raised concerns about untested treatments carried out by doctors. These included procedures that claim to whittle away fat, whiten or smoothen the skin, or to bring back lost youth.

The MOH has said that for now, it will regulate riskier procedures such as liposuction, and leave the professionals to draw up rules for the others.

In his paper, Dr Tan noted that the aesthetic medicine industry is only marginally regulated even in developed countries, and that the need for regulation appears more dire there as more general practitioners are performing such procedures.

Dr Hong Soo Wan, who heads the Society of Cosmetic (Aesthetic) Surgeons of Singapore, agreed with Dr Tan on the need for regulation, saying patient safety and education are paramount.

'Patients have to be informed about who is providing these treatments and the outcomes have to be clear,' he said.

But Dr Benjamin Yim, speaking for the Society of Aesthetic Medicine (Singapore), prefers self-regulation.

The onus must be on the doctor to look at the safety of the procedure and evaluate it before carrying it out, he said.

'We recognise that it has worked well but is not perfect and we feel there is more room for guidelines.'

But Dr Tan said that, in a free and unregulated market, the popularity of aesthetic medicine would perpetuate demand for it.

Besides warping society's attitudes towards beauty, the industry could also distort doctor-patient relationships, he warned.

This could come as a result of patients' high expectations of results and an increased risk of medical malpractice suits.