Proposition 53K1487

Projet de loi interdisant la publicité et réglementant l'information relatives aux actes d'esthétique médicale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Sept. 1, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection medicine aesthetic surgery advertising dental medicine public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 23, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill from the Senate, where it was the subject of consensus, is presented to us today.

Members of the committee noted that the enthusiasm for aesthetic medicine was no longer to be demonstrated and that overflow was indeed seen. Legalization becomes an obligation. Faced with the scale and difficulty of the task, the Senate decided to work in several stages.

This first bill banning advertising and regulating information relating to acts of medical aesthetics for any doctor who exercises in this field has been submitted to the House. The prohibition of advertising applies to any communication or action that would directly or indirectly target acts of medical aesthetics, regardless of the place, the medium and the techniques used, including reality television broadcasts.

The discussion was primarily technical and somewhat procedural. The bill was adopted unanimously in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I will now communicate the position of my group.

Please please Mrs.

Mr. President, I thank you.

This bill aimed at prohibiting advertising and regulating personal information relating to acts of medical aesthetics, which my colleague André du Bus co-signed in the Senate, is an essential concern in our society. In the face of the enthusiasm for cosmetic surgery, which is reinforced by its over-mediation – especially through the Internet – aimed at reaching a public that too often worships a cult of physical appearance, in the face of standards imposed by fashion and advertising, it was appropriate and even necessary to legislate.

Aesthetic surgery interventions are now perceived by a fraction of the population, as genuine consumer products. However, cosmetic surgery is a full-fledged medical discipline, which involves heavy and non-risk-free operations for the health of patients. We must be aware of this.

That is why my group strongly supports this bill and considers that this is a first step in the matter, which will need to be supplemented by a regulation on the practice of surgery and aesthetic medicine.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, medical interventions without a medical reason occurred only in celebrities a few decades ago. We had no knowledge of these techniques. Today, the urge to remark its appearance is present among our population more than ever. The struggle against ageing, at least in appearance, is being carried out.

Interventions of medical aesthetics are necessary to allow a number of patients to integrate into society. In that context, I think of victims of previous interventions following serious mutilating diseases, of victims of an accident, of burns, and so on. These medical interventions always occurred in the controlled environment of a hospital and were gradually, for the sake of their social interest, therefore also reimbursed by the compulsory health insurance.

There was also always a balance of the advantages and disadvantages of this procedure. As already mentioned, every procedure involves risks and disadvantages. In such situations, the potential disadvantages were often less than the benefits of such an intervention.

Because interventions of medical aesthetics today have become much more widespread among the population, they have also become a kind of fashion phenomenon. This medical discipline has thus entered more into the commercial sphere. It focuses primarily on the benefits and pays much less attention to the potential health risks associated with such an intervention. So it is time to bring a balance in communication about medical procedures of an aesthetic nature.

This bill provides an incentive to this by prohibiting active advertising. The photos before and after, mostly of women, where it is represented as if in five minutes a rather formless person can be transformed into a Barbie doll-like figure, and the reality TV that mostly brought successes in the picture, give future patients only one-sided positive information.

It is actually advertising that prompts to undergo an intervention. It is now banned, regardless of the carrier of the advertisement.

This does not imply that we prohibit professional practitioners from providing personal information. Everyone has the right to tell whether he or she is doing aesthetic surgery and – very importantly – what professional titles he or she has. The latter is ⁇ relevant. It is possible to check whether a person is registered with the Order of Doctors, and thus have the certainty that he or she is a doctor, but this registration does not contain information about the special professional titles that a person acquires, which is very important for the quality of this care. It is also important that this personal information should not be misleading or comparative, and should not use financial arguments. This would make the dividing line with advertising too thin.

I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate for the work they have done. I highly appreciate that they have obtained the opinions of all the actors on the field and that they have also taken those opinions into account. I think in particular of the Order of Doctors.

We are fully aware that this bill will not solve all problems relating to medical interventions of an aesthetic nature. I understand that the Senate is continuing to work on proposals to ensure quality treatment. That work is needed.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I will give you a nuance of the debate in the committee. Stricter regulation is absolutely necessary when it comes to cosmetic surgery. This has already been mentioned by Ms. De Block.

Today sp.a will approve the draft law from the Senate, but I find it very regrettable that we have not addressed the story related to cosmetic surgery globally. The draft law now provides only for the narrowing of one point, namely a ban on advertising, and in the arrangement of the information to the patient. That is good. In this way, we deal with overconsumption.

But not only information is important. Another aspect I find at least equally important: quality care for patients. Very often we see in magazines photos of women who have undergone a breast enlargement or breast reduction, but where it has failed; there are incredibly many mistakes.

Given the fact that in many neighboring countries a lot of things are regulated by law and not in our country, I regret that the bill submitted by Thierry Giet was disconnected in the committee from the other bill. However, the quality of care must be guaranteed. We need to focus the discussion on the definition of a medical aesthetic procedure. We want to ban advertising, but we don’t know the exact definition of such an intervention. Let me give the example of the eyelid correction. On the one hand, it is good to improve the patient’s vision, on the other hand, it is also an aesthetic procedure. The grey zone remains and is not clarified by the bill itself.

I have trouble with the speed of the vote. I am pleased that the text is being voted, but it is a pity that we have not been able to properly discuss the two proposals in the committee and then vote on them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

This proposal aims to regulate advertising boasting acts that are anything but anodins. The field of cosmetic medicine and surgery has grown and continues to grow. This development corresponds, without a doubt, to a social evolution, which we do not have to judge, but which is real.

It requires us to adopt a number of measures related to advertising – and this is the subject of today’s proposal – but also, as you pointed out, to the distribution of “competence” among the actors and professionals in the sector, to the approval and the framework of standards relating to the premises and the equipment used. One does not prevent the other.

We are now ready to vote on a text that meets the needs of the sector and the population. As you know, this matter is delicate. We had to meet with the field actors and negotiate. with them. This is what the Senate has done, in particular on the initiative of Senator Dominique Tilmans, who has taken all necessary contacts in search of a consensus on a text that can actually be applied.

Indeed, as always in this sector, if the necessary consensus is not reached, the enforcement of the law is extremely difficult subsequently. A consensus with the industry was found here on a part of the problem, namely advertising. This does not prevent the continuation of the work – this was the subject of the discussion in the committee – nor that the question “Who does what in the sector?” is addressed with doctors, dermatologists, surgeons and other non-medical practitioners. The examination of this question must be continued, even though the latter is much more difficult to solve.

This is because an agreement must be reached between doctors, dermatologists and surgeons regarding the distribution of "competences". This deserves an in-depth work in consultation with industry professionals. This work is currently underway in the Senate and the State Council’s opinion on Ms. Tilmans’ proposals has been requested.

Is it because the whole work is not done that a text aimed at regulating advertising, which is often – it must be said – abusive, could not be voted today? and no. We must move forward on this issue without waiting for everything to be settled definitively.

This advertising is often of a very commercial nature. She shows pictures before and after an intervention. These photos are often accompanied by more or less suspicious testimony.

There is something to regulate. Should we prohibit everything? and no. I believe that information is necessary. The patient has the right to be informed. He must be able to know what kind of practitioner he is dealing with when addressing an institution. Personalized information is undoubtedly necessary, which is why we did not want to prohibit any communication.

Should there be a general rule on medical advertising? The question is legitimate. We could have actually gone further and regulated the advertising that relates to all medical acts. This is a specificity that cannot be denied. Aesthetic medicine, medical aesthetics, is the object of advertising campaigns that are sometimes overwhelming and that put people’s health at risk; it intervenes on their appearance with sometimes important psychological consequences that this can entail for them.

We are working hard to regulate advertising specific to this sector. That is why we will vote on this text. The progress is interesting.

We remain available to work on the texts currently being studied in the Senate. by Mr. Thierry Giet has submitted proposals in this direction; we are not entirely agreeing with the content of these proposals, but they deserve to be discussed.

If the Senate does the work, we don’t necessarily have to duplicate and react in exactly the same way. I trust my Senate colleague, Dominique Tilmans: she has worked a lot on the matter. It meets industry professionals and will allow us to analyze the text as soon as the Senate arrives to complete the text that we vote today.

Thanks to Mr. Bacquelaine who has repeatedly highlighted the work of Mrs. Tilmans, who came to see if Mr. Bacquelaine did his job well.