Just wanted to let everyone know that LASER COSMETICA OF PLAINVIEW, N.Y, 1st treatment left me with round burns covering my hands up to my arm pit, lower back and neck, very painful and took an execsive amount of time for scab to go away, that was about 8 weeks ago , i figured , ok everyone makes mistakes, so i go back for a second sesion, this time the lady burnt my 2 month old $2000 tattoo partially off my neck!! what is it with these people, Finally i thought ,this was enough!! I called upper managment. Not very helpfull, .Now i amn left with round dots of lose of pigment on my arms, and lower back, and a partialy burnt tattoo. I guess they rather talk to a lawer?! just wanted to let people know what is goin on, and to stay away from them!!!
What is your skin type? (Lightest being #1, Darkest being #6)
What color is your hair?
How thick is your hair?
I think that the laser hair removal industry is filled with inepts with little training, with little understanding of skin and hair, with little understanding of hair removal technology, in my opinion these people are motivated by greed and not a committment to ending the distress that comes from unwanted hair. I am sorry that you had such a bad experience.
Take Photos fast!
How long have they been in business? Did you pay for a package of treatments?
Is there a state board that regulates and moniters hair removal specialists in New York State yet? Where and to whom does an individual register a complaint, Arlene? Maybe this should be done before you hire an attorney.
YES! Do take digital photo’s. Good idea.
I’m amazed that the “technician” did not cover the tattoo.
Thanks for the heads up on this place.I’m sure you have helped others who are reading this. Too bad you went back for a second assault.
Dee
Like Texas and some other states, New York has no regulations regarding laser hair removal. Anyone can buy one. I think that lasers are potentially too dangerous to be so easily accessible. I think one should be an electrologist, one should be an esthetician, one should be in health care and educated about skin and hair and technology. Many of these laser hair removal techs are none of the above.
Make some calls to laser hair removal places and ask questions about skin and hair and growth cycles and then call electrologists and ask the same questions.
Are you getting information about hair removal or a sales pitch?
Is there anything happening in these particular states to tighten up the standards of who should use lasers, Arlene?
There is some talk about it.
Personally, I don’t care who administers laser as long as those who do take written tests and practical exams and the tests should be tough.
Laser hair removal is not as technically difficult to administer as electrolysis. I agree with you that the “who” is less important than the training and credentialling part. Not having a state board or other agency for consumers to report problems to is simply obscene.
I don’t want to speak about other states, but let me tell you about what is happening in Texas.
First there are places for consumers to report problems to. For example, problems can be reported to the Texas Dept of Health or any number of Boards, to include the Texas Medical Board.
Now about regulation. For almost the entire decade we have been actively trying to come to a set of reasonable rules governing laser hair removal. My operating principle has been that there needs to be a set of mimimum standards for training and experience and a certification process including an examination. Anyway, for the last two years we have had a law up for passage in the Texas legislature. Here is some info on it.
HB 174: Laser Hair Removal: One of the hot-button issues at the next Regular Session of the Texas Legislature (which convenes in January) is the regulation of facilities and persons offering laser hair removal. The first bill in what is likely to be a long line of bills relating to the regulation of the medical spa (or medspa) industry is HB 174 authored by Representative Vicki Truitt.
If passed as drafted, HB 174 would add Chapter 1604 to the Texas Occupations Code. What will likely be the most controversial part of HB 174 is section 1604.002 which provides that “Laser hair removal procedures under this chapter are neither the practice of medicine nor a medical procedure.” Opponents argue that the use of lasers should be limited to medical doctors.
HB 174, on the other hand, would allow a person holding one of four types of certificates to practice laser hair removal–irrespective of whether they are a medical doctor–under the supervision of a person holding a professional certificate. A person may either obtain a professional certificate, a senior technician certificate, a technician certificate, or an apprentice-in-training certificate.
The Bill provides some level of protection to consumers by requiring a laser hair removal facility to have a certified laser hair removal professional present to supervise the laser hair removal procedures during the spa’s business hours. Additionally, a medical spa would have to employ or contract with a medical doctor to establish protocols for the services provided and assist the facility in the preparation and review of the protocols. This should not be a major hurdle for many medspas given that a great number of physicians are leaving the traditional practice of medicine for the more lucrative (and insurance free) medspa practice.
So what we had established would be the first reasonable set of rules that would provide clear guidance on what training and experience was needed to provide laser hair removal. In addition, HB 174 was agreed to by the Texas Dept of Health (which is the agency that would have been in charge) and the Texas Board of Medicine.
Of course, this is politics. This would have been the model by which other states could approach laser hair removal and there is a group of physicians who can not have that happen. So the Texas Dermatologic Society, working with the Texas Medical Association was able to convince the chairwoman of the Public Health committee (married to a plastic surgeon) not to let the bill be brought up for a hearing. So even though every other member of the committee was prepared to pass the bill out of committee, the bill will officially die next Tuesday.
We will see what happens next
I see the material you quoted on this site ( http://texaslaw.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_texaslaw_archive.html ), which also has a blog in which an anonymous poster has stated:
‘Laser Hair Removal is the only thing at issue here because the company that sued the medical board (Smooth Solutions) only performs hair removal. That’s why this is only covering that procedure and they don’t care about getting other procedures to fall under the “no physician needed” umbrella.’
The underlying concern is whether the same lasers could be used for “medical” treatments.
BTW, the text of the bill is at 80(R) HB 174 - Introduced version - Bill Text , its status can be seen at Texas Legislature Online - 80(R) History for HB 174 , and the Texas Medical Board discusses the topic at http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/rules/laserrule.php
The competing bill, HR 3368, which advocates a medical operation of LHR can be seen at Texas Legislature Online - 80(R) History for HB 3368
PS. I thought it ironic that my best googling responses were for the entry, “HB 174 texas hair”.
I don’t know whether it’s “not caring” as much as not being able to prove that other procedures can be done without this “umbrella” as they don’t perform them.
By the way, HB 174 and HB 3368 both died this week by not coming out of committee. There was never any desire for HB 3368 to go to committee, it was just submitted to provide cover for blocking HB 174.
As far as that blog entry, I have no idea where that came from or what the point was. We do laser hair removal and have quite a bit of experience and records concerning its safety. We don’t do other procedures, so I can’t say much about their safety. I do believe there is a continuum of procedures. On one end is CO2 laser resurfacing. I personally believe that that procedure must be done by a physician personally. It is not delegatable. On the other end is laser hair removal, which has been shown to be able to be safely done by non-physicians without a physician physically present. Somewhere on the continuum there is a line that needs to be drawn. I don’t know where that line is.
But one of the things that the blogger may not have understood is that the laser hair removal bill would provide a framework upon which to help draw that line. One of things that we have tried to put into place is a reporting mechanism in the Texas Dept of Health so that we can figure out what is safe and what isn’t safe. Using that framework, we could then expand this approach to those procedures that proved they were safe.
The other issue at play is a mistaken understanding of what is the practice of medicine, at least in the State of Texas. The practice of medicine is not the tool that one uses. It is purpose that counts. So for example, I can use a scalple to remove a skin cancer. That is the practice of medicine. I can also use that exact same scalple to carve lines on skin so as to leave a mark. That is call personal adornment and is not the practice of medicine.
Another example, I can go down to the store and by a hunting knife. Even though that knife has nothing to do with the practice of medicine, I could use that knife to perform surgery, which would be the practice of medicine.
So to go back to the question of alternative uses of lasers. If I use a laser system to provide hair removal, that isn’t the practice of medicine as far as I’m concerned. If I use the same laser to treat a skin condition, then that is the practice of medicine.
Of course that brings up the question of whether treating wrinkles and age spots is the practice of medicine. That’s a gray area.
Practice of Medicin = Anything the AMA wants a monopoly on.
Be happy! In France ELECTROLYSIS is practice of medicine without a license if you are not working for a doctor, in his office.