THERE is unlikely to be any major shake-up in the aesthetic treatment business because of the new rules released by the profession and the Ministry of Health (MOH), say doctors.
The guidelines covering about 30 aesthetic treatments give both the specialist and the general practitioner (GP) sufficient room to continue to make a living.
Some signboards will have to be changed, though - as doctors were reminded yesterday that they cannot refer to themselves as 'aesthetic' doctors or surgeons, as it is not a recognised specialty.
There will also be clear benefits for patients with the new guidelines. They can be confident that the doctor is properly trained to offer the treatment if it has been tried and tested.
And if it is experimental, then the doctor will be watched closely and the results monitored as well, regardless of whether he is a specialist or a GP.
The two camps have, for the most part, been on opposite ends of the aesthetic treatment debate for the past three months.
Some plastic surgeons were portrayed as viewing regulation as a way to protect their turf, while GPs were said to prefer minimal oversight so that they could muscle in on the lucrative $200-million-a-year market.
With the new guidelines out yesterday, plastic surgeons are happy that most invasive treatments must be carried out in an operation theatre, a requirement which would effectively rule out GPs.
Dr Colin Tham, honorary secretary of the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons, welcomed the restriction on GPs doing invasive procedures, and said the impact of the new guidelines on plastic surgeons was minimal.
He did speak up on behalf of GPs, questioning the need for a certificate of competence for GPs to perform some of the non-invasive procedures, describing the requirement as being 'over the top'.
But other plastic surgeons did caution that the institutions awarding the certificates should be scrutinised carefully.
GPs who have been offering some of the less scientifically proven treatments such as mesotherapy and carboxytherapy said they would have to study the clinical trial requirements closely before deciding if they will apply to offer these treatments after Nov 1, when the new guidelines kick in.
The Society of Aesthetic Medicine, which comprises mainly GPs, plans to write in to MOH to appeal against requiring seven 'controversial' treatments to be offered only as a clinical trial.
The society's spokesman, Dr Benjamin Yim, a GP who has been offering endermologie for four years, said patients might be more sceptical of the treatment when told that it is experimental, and this might drive them away. Endermologie is a non-invasive technique for reducing the appearance of cellulite
As a clinical trial, doctors have to document in detail patient results and, usually, a large pool of patients is needed - typically about 200.
Associate Professor Goh Lee Gan, president of the College of Family Physicians, said the cumbersome process might discourage some doctors from doing them. 'Research will show us if the treatment is useful or not for the patients,' said Prof Goh.
However, Dr Roy Chio, a GP who offers endermologie and micro-needling, said there already exists evidence that these treatments work and they are well-documented in medical journals overseas.
A marketing executive, who wanted to be known only as Cynthia, said having proper guidelines now will make it easier for patients like her to know what is allowed and what is not.
But the 26-year-old, who had micro-needling treatment about five months ago, said it had been effective in reducing her acne marks.
