Zoe Thomas, Janneke Berecki-Gisolf, Genevieve Grant, Ken K Karipidis
{"title":"追求美丽的烧伤:非电离辐射对化妆品的伤害和相关的监管空白。","authors":"Zoe Thomas, Janneke Berecki-Gisolf, Genevieve Grant, Ken K Karipidis","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10475-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite recent regulatory reforms to improve the safety of cosmetic procedures in Australia, treatments involving non-ionizing radiation (NIR)-such as laser, intense pulsed light and radiofrequency-remain largely unregulated in most states and territories. Recent reviews have concluded that there is a lack of evidence of adverse effects, and insufficient evidence has also been cited as a barrier to regulatory reforms. We sought to characterize adverse effects from cosmetic treatments involving NIR reported in Australian media and to analyse associated regulatory themes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for Australian news media disseminated between 2008-2023 reporting adverse effects from cosmetic treatments involving non-ionizing radiation (NIR). Identified case reports were coded and analysed to explore adverse effects and associated regulatory insights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred unique media reports were identified that described ninety-five cases. One in five involved permanent effects with burns and scarring most frequently reported (sixty-five and fifty-four cases respectively). Reports concerned women more than men (eighty vs eight cases), most commonly following laser (sixty cases) or IPL (twenty-nine cases) treatment and in non-clinical rather than clinical settings (sixty vs eighteen cases). Six practitioners collectively accounted for almost one third of cases. Significant regulatory gaps were identified, including insufficient mechanisms for addressing poor professional practice, and barriers to consumers seeking compensation including minimum injury thresholds and uninsured providers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Media reports have documented cases of serious and permanent injuries following cosmetic NIR treatments in Australia. Nationally consistent regulations should be considered to ensure standards of care, protect consumers, and reduce barriers to redress.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Burned in Pursuit of Beauty: Injuries From Cosmetic Use of Non-Ionizing Radiation and Associated Regulatory Gaps.\",\"authors\":\"Zoe Thomas, Janneke Berecki-Gisolf, Genevieve Grant, Ken K Karipidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-025-10475-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite recent regulatory reforms to improve the safety of cosmetic procedures in Australia, treatments involving non-ionizing radiation (NIR)-such as laser, intense pulsed light and radiofrequency-remain largely unregulated in most states and territories. Recent reviews have concluded that there is a lack of evidence of adverse effects, and insufficient evidence has also been cited as a barrier to regulatory reforms. We sought to characterize adverse effects from cosmetic treatments involving NIR reported in Australian media and to analyse associated regulatory themes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for Australian news media disseminated between 2008-2023 reporting adverse effects from cosmetic treatments involving non-ionizing radiation (NIR). Identified case reports were coded and analysed to explore adverse effects and associated regulatory insights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred unique media reports were identified that described ninety-five cases. One in five involved permanent effects with burns and scarring most frequently reported (sixty-five and fifty-four cases respectively). Reports concerned women more than men (eighty vs eight cases), most commonly following laser (sixty cases) or IPL (twenty-nine cases) treatment and in non-clinical rather than clinical settings (sixty vs eighteen cases). Six practitioners collectively accounted for almost one third of cases. Significant regulatory gaps were identified, including insufficient mechanisms for addressing poor professional practice, and barriers to consumers seeking compensation including minimum injury thresholds and uninsured providers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Media reports have documented cases of serious and permanent injuries following cosmetic NIR treatments in Australia. Nationally consistent regulations should be considered to ensure standards of care, protect consumers, and reduce barriers to redress.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10475-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10475-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Burned in Pursuit of Beauty: Injuries From Cosmetic Use of Non-Ionizing Radiation and Associated Regulatory Gaps.
Background: Despite recent regulatory reforms to improve the safety of cosmetic procedures in Australia, treatments involving non-ionizing radiation (NIR)-such as laser, intense pulsed light and radiofrequency-remain largely unregulated in most states and territories. Recent reviews have concluded that there is a lack of evidence of adverse effects, and insufficient evidence has also been cited as a barrier to regulatory reforms. We sought to characterize adverse effects from cosmetic treatments involving NIR reported in Australian media and to analyse associated regulatory themes.
Methods: We searched for Australian news media disseminated between 2008-2023 reporting adverse effects from cosmetic treatments involving non-ionizing radiation (NIR). Identified case reports were coded and analysed to explore adverse effects and associated regulatory insights.
Results: One hundred unique media reports were identified that described ninety-five cases. One in five involved permanent effects with burns and scarring most frequently reported (sixty-five and fifty-four cases respectively). Reports concerned women more than men (eighty vs eight cases), most commonly following laser (sixty cases) or IPL (twenty-nine cases) treatment and in non-clinical rather than clinical settings (sixty vs eighteen cases). Six practitioners collectively accounted for almost one third of cases. Significant regulatory gaps were identified, including insufficient mechanisms for addressing poor professional practice, and barriers to consumers seeking compensation including minimum injury thresholds and uninsured providers.
Conclusions: Media reports have documented cases of serious and permanent injuries following cosmetic NIR treatments in Australia. Nationally consistent regulations should be considered to ensure standards of care, protect consumers, and reduce barriers to redress.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies