Warning: You currently have javascript turned off. Functionality of this website will be greatly reduced.

Are Skin Care Treatments as Safe as they are Advertised?

Skin care and cosmetic treatments are becoming more and more common these days, with plenty of people looking to revitalise their skin and give themselves a lift.

It is not too difficult to find surgeries that will supply these kinds of treatments and the end results usually make the recipient feel better than before they walked in.

But are there dangers to receiving these types of treatments? Well sure, no doubt there are risks and it is strongly advisable you speak to the person giving you the treatment, whatever it might be, in regards to what is used in the treatment to make sure there is no chance of allergic reaction.

The real risk through with these treatments appears to be within how they are advertised to people.

For example in the case of Webster v Liddington and Others (2014), the claimant had booked themselves in for a rejuvenating skin therapy treatment. A perfectly normal procedure these days where by the patient’s own cells are used to cultivate fibroblasts and make and secrete collagen proteins that maintain the tissues structured frame work.

That is the scientific part. The controversy came though when after receiving the treatment that small traces of FCS (Foetal Calf Serum) could remain even though it was never disclosed in the manufacturer’s brochure.

FCS is used to culture the fibroblasts which stimulates the survival and growth of human cells and when the fibroblasts have been developed the FCS is washed clean and the fibroblasts are created to make suitable injectant to administer.

The problem is if the FCS can still remain present within the injectants, which are given as a series of fortnightly sessions, then there is a real risk of allergic reactions in some individuals.

The claimant was successful in this case as it was deemed that the manufacturers of the treatment had advertised that there would only be the patient’s cells within the injectant and no extraneous material. With the presence of the FCS, this meant that the brochures where completely misrepresentative.

Thankfully, in this instance, there was no physical injuries but it does raise the question of how many other people may have been exposed to this risk due to lack of prior information provided by the manufacturers.

The manufacturers did attempt an appeal on this occasion but it was quickly thrown out as it was deemed that they were responsible for statements found within the brochures and that the statements where subsequently inaccurate and that because the manufactured had adopted the contents of the brochure when they handed them to their patients without disclosure they were therefore liable of putting their patient at risk from potential allergic reaction.

One moral to definitely take out of this story is to always make sure you have a thorough conversation with the person carrying out this procedure or any other type of cosmetic or skin care procedure on you before you go ahead.

Ask questions about the process and what materials are used and how they are used and make absolutely sure that you are not at any risk of harm from an allergic reaction because the brochure that may have been passed to you may be misrepresentation.

If you feel that this or something similar to this has already happened to you and want advice on whether or not you can make a claim similar how the claimant has done in this test case, contact us today by filling out the form below or call us on 0800 61 43 61 and speak to one of our specialist adviser.

[formidable id=4]

 

 

investors in people goldlexcel logoiso logo
© 2017 Scott Rees & Co. All Rights reserved. Scott Rees & Co are not responsible for any content on external websites.
Back to top