There are a few points in Collier’s article on tattoo removal1 that I must point out in the interests of accuracy:
Using the second–degree-burn incident at Bye Bye Tattoo in Quebec to advocate for physician control over laser tattoo removal is misguided. The burns to the client were chemical in nature, not physical, and were caused by the injection of a chemical intended to “lift” or “dissolve” ink embedded in the skin. This story illustrates what we can expect if laser tattoo removal is made inaccessible to the general public. The public will continue to seek out unproven and dangerous options like chemical injection.
Adding laser use to the list of restricted activities will not result in laser tattoo removal being performed strictly by regulated health practitioners. Restricted activities only apply in the context of providing a health service. There is simply no defensible argument that laser tattoo removal and other cosmetic laser treatments performed by estheticians or tattoo artists are somehow health services.
The assertion that because these are cosmetic procedures they somehow fall outside of a health ministry’s purview shows poor recognition of the larger public health family to which physicians belong. Ministries of health absolutely have an interest in cosmetic services. This is evident from the prevalence of personal-service legislation throughout the country. For decades, public health inspectors in Canada have successfully inspected personal service activities like body piercing, tattooing, permanent makeup, acupuncture, electrolysis and chemical skin treatments. Their track record tells us that they would be ideally suited to bring increased safety to cosmetic laser services.
Overall, the article1 asks a relevant and timely question, but ends up being myopic in its scope by intimating that the field of medicine is the best profession to provide the answer. No one would disagree with Collier’s argument that calls for regulation, oversight and a complaint mechanism around the use of cosmetic lasers. However, since medicine cannot regulate outside of its own profession, medical professionals are better suited in this scenario as advocates for change. The question is not, “Should medicine take over tattoo removal,” but, “How can medicine advocate for better outcomes?”