You are right Beate, I think the medical lobby is very strong here, particulary about the beauty buisiness. In the one hand this is a good thing in order to protect citizens, but in the other hand the dermatologists who are allowed to perform electrolysis, they do it wrong because of the lake of training… this is a nonsence.
One teeny weeny little question -
HOW DO DERMATOLOGISTSTS IN FRANCE HAVE THE PATIENCE AND MOST OF ALL - !!!THE TIME!!! to disable thousands of hair follicles like these:
Or like these:
Or this!
Good Shepard Save This Land! How about these hairs on a woman’s legs?
Ears!
Free, ordinary citizens are no match against lobbyists ( whether they be medical or otherwise) and the big government politicians, who in turn, have the power to pass laws that benefit the later two.
I rest my case.
They don’t, of course. They want to make easy money with the beauty farms attached to their offices. Performing electrolysis is neither - easy nor much. But it reduces the “reputation” of photoepilation and it reduces the client base.
But this is simply the business interest of the medical lobby and administration officials who are able to lose their intelligence when the arrive at their work place. As i do not have that ability, i was caused to leave my job in an administration - at about the same time as Angela Merkel fired a secretary of state because of to much intelligence. [/quote]
I never thought I’d say this:. Miss Angela Merkel begins to seem sympathetic to me. Germany has lost a member of its administration, but it has gained an honest electrologist totally dedicated to her work.
As Beate said, they don’t. Dermatologists don’t want to perform electrolysis… (Perform it the right way I mean) This is precisely why there is a “crisis of electrolysis” in France.
Exactly! I asked that question tongue in cheek, complete with some of the most common requests for hair removal. If the dermatologists are not doing electrolysis, then they are not capturing the paying consumer, so what advantage have they gained?
Dectro International would be the key to open the door to electrolysis in France, with your help Maiakochka.
It sounds like someone, who didn’t understand electrolysis very well was instrumental in pushing through a nonsensical law in France.
What a waste not having anybody serve the hairy in France.
VIVE LA REVOLUTION !!
A friend of mine, who is currently studying electrolysis in Quebec, speaked about the situation in France to Dectro. Sadly, they can not help us to change the law.
Thus, we should find an other way to try to move forward.
[quote=“adrien_sanchiz”]
A friend of mine, who is currently studying electrolysis in Quebec, speaked about the situation in France to Dectro. Sadly, they can not help us to change the law. [/quote]
Dectro should not miss this opportunity to partner with the cause of this young man who, no doubt, will become the most influential electrologist of all France.
Attention Mesdames et Messieurs de Dectro Internacional, ne pas oubliez ce nom, Adrien Sanchiz, avec l’aide de tous les Français ce garçon va changer les choses en France!
For my part, I will support you in all that I can, my dear.
We have some ideas whose purpose is to mobilize the French people against this absurd and unjust law. Hairtell friends, wish us luck!
Hi Adrien,
Laws are a bit like ghosts. They are a man made limitation on what we do and our rights and priveleges as people. Sometimes people put an emphasis on a particular law and it’s taken as fact, when it really isnt applicable legally.Let me give you an example of this.
Here in Canada when I first started learning electrolysis, I was trying to buy some probes locally. I called up a store and was asking about what they had available they told me to bring my “certificate” when purchasing so I would be allowed to purchase. I obviously at that time had no such thing.
I’ve heard this “law” spouted to me multiple times by electrologists, sometimes by suppliers that one must have this in order to do electrolysis.
The thing is, such a regulation doesnt exist! At least not in my country. There is no limitation on buying supplies. There is no licensing of who can perform electrolysis. No electrolysis school here is “accredited” . But there is a common perception that this is the case, and sometimes this perception is perpetuated by organizatioons that wish to control who can perform electrolysis, organizations like the FCEA or COPE ( equivelent to the AEA in the US) or by other electrologists who dont wish more competition in the market. Sometimes these rules exist. Sometimes they exist but dont describe what we are doing effectively and so arent legally applicable. Sometimes, we are fighting an ironclad enforcible regulation that can only be changed by an act of parliament.
Where Dectro is located in Montreal area, there is NO ELECTROLYSIS REGULATION whatsoever. In fact this is so widely known that there is a glut of used machines usually available from within the province of quebec. But they arent located in France, have no legal standing to challenge any law in france that I am aware of , so they truly as you indicate arent in a position to do so.If change is to happen, it must happen from within france in accordance with your laws.
Now, let me throw a monkey wrench into your works. Are you sure that such a law exists, and is applicable? This is the part where you can probably make the most progress in defeating such a regulation. You have to examine exactly what the law is, how it is applicable to what we do as electrologists, and what ways there are around it’s implementation in such a manner that it restricts what we do.
I’m not a expert in french law or how it applies, heck I can only partially read and understand the language.I do however feel that if you are wanting to make progress to put this limitation at rest, then you need to fully understand the exact legal regulation and how it applies. This starts, with reviewing the law itself, and examining how it applies or is enforced.This is no different a process in france as it is in any other part of the world.It also important to note what advances in technology have occurred that the law does or doesnt keep up with, so thereforeeither apply or do not
As an example of this, lets have a look at a fictitious law for a fictitious country, we’ll call in zombieland. In Zombieland they have outlawed electrolysis in 1971 because the legislators decided that removing the hairs from the festering wounds on the zombies was contrary to their presentation and so they didnt look scary enough to scare away invaders. Lets further assume that in zombieland they describe electrolysis as a term as the act of inserting a metallic filiment into the hair follicle and that filiment being used as a monopolar conductor of DC current in order to remove a hair. Sounds like the zombies in zombieland are safe from the evils of electrolysis and that this law applies right? No person in zombieland can perform electrolysis and the zombies are all safe from hair removal.
Ok, but what if the way the law is worded is in such a manner that it’s insufficient? What happens if all the zombies who want to be electrologists and help their hairsute brother zombies, all start practising thermolysis? The law doesnt do anything to describe thermolysis so the law would not legally apply. The wording ,how it is interpreted both by public and the people who are enforcing it, become the measure of what that law can do. This has to happen before one even begins to challenge a law to examine exactly how it is interpreted and applied.
Before any law can be applicable to anyone, it has to be interpreted. It has to adequately describe the act being carried out. It has to be enforced by some body in order to have any power.
I feel the best way you can combat the law in your contry, is to examine it extensively. What does the law say , exactly? Does it describe “electrolysis” but not thermolysis? Does it describe the act of tweezing a hair? how is the language interpreted by the general public? Are the terms specific and clean enough to make it enforceable? Is there legal standing for the law to be misinterpreted?
One of the things I’ve realized lately is that sometimes something is worded one way so that it gives the SUGGESTION it applies to a certain situation when it doesnt.
So here in summary are some of the things you need to know. The exact wording of the law. How does this wording apply to general perception and how does it apply in law in relation to what we are doiing and is this description applicable. Decriptors are extremely important as is an understanding of the language that it is written in. And finally, the exact process to which laws are applies. Who enforces this regulation ( if that is no one, then it doesnt have any applicability in law). If the law does apply, then what is the process for such a law to be changed? Can this only happen by an act of parliament? You need to find this out and start the process if this is the case.
I’d like for you to post if you can the specific law you are referring to in the language in which it is written. Find out how it is applied. Who is enforcing it. It’s possible the law doesnt even exist. It’s possible like the law here in canada, that it doesnt exist but people think it does. If it does exist, how does it describe or how it is applicable to what we do. And what are the legal processes to change it. Do you have any particular group that can and would be willing to advicate for such a change, example dermatologists who dont want to field constant questions as to whether they will perform electrology, something they dont want to do because it’s more profitable to work in actual medicine? I think this information is not present in this thread.
I’ve been practising electrology for a couple years now. There is as mentioned no electrology licensing in my country. On multiple occasions, someone from this board has called up Ottawa Public health department to complain that I am practising electrology without a license. I have a very good understanding of for my locale what laws exist and what laws dont and how they apply to what I do. How they are interpreted and by whom. So I can tell you that on one of these occasions I’ve gotten a call from Ottawa Health just to give me a heads up about a complaint. They do have a process for examining premises for anyone that provides what is called a “Personal Service Setting” and electrology does fall into that category. But in order to be applicable to in law there have to be specific qualifiers. I do not run a commercial premises.I don t normally charge a fee for “services” and so dont qualify as a personal service setting. So what regulations DO pertain to me?
In Ontario, it is a legal requirement that anyone operating an autoclave sterilizer perform a spore test with X frequency and that these spore tests be kept record of as to how often they are performed, and the results. There is specific language which gives the Health Department laws which they can enforce. The cannot give any specific remedy for a unlicensed electrologist, what they can do is conduct a inspection of my premesis and to ensure that items bought as sterile ( example probes) are indeed so and that they are handled correctly. That my autoclave is tested in compliance with the law. But I’ve spoken to electrologists both in my city and in other cities in ontario and they seem to be mostly unaware of any legal standing of any law pertaining to autoclave. Some have been inspected at some point, but most have never had their premises inspected. Those that have, do have a report on the Ottawa Public health website that can be accessed and viewed by any member of the public.That however is the extent to which there is legal recourse for them to act. No law with specific penalties for reusing a probe, or using dirty tweezers exists.
My autoclave is tested within the frequency guidelines by an accredited laboratory so is allowed to remain in operation. Records are kept on supplies purchased as sterile. I am not running a personal service setting so the health department is not interested in inspecting me, and even if they were their only recourse should they find a deficiency is to enter it into a report on their website in what way I am not in compliance. So they arent interested in me asto providing a service, have no ability or manpower to act even if they did.Their sole recourse is to check if my autoclave is kept sufficient records of if I am using one.
Now compare this to another electrologist in my city. She does laser. I’ve spoken to her actually. From her home she runs a business that incorporates laser, electrolysis , and some medical proceedures including botox injections and face lifts. Some time ago the city health inspectors inspected her and ran a “sting” to determine if she ws practising medicine without a livcense. or whether those proceedures qualified under the law. There are reports of her providing beer to clients before perfrming medical proceedures. The law in canada DOES apply to her and action was brought by the ontario college of surgeons in court. The law applies to her because it describes the act of “Injecting Noxious substances” . She can still do electrolysis and laser, but she cannot provide those other services that were so applicable to her under law.
So it comes down to how the law is written, how it’s applicable, and how and wen it is enforced. This is what you need to jknow before you can change anything.
Seana
Thank you Josefa. I look forward to start our collaboration project about this.
Dear Seana, I already give the link of this law in page 2. There it is : http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000802880
Unfortunately, this law of 1962 is very very clear and there is absolutely not different way to interpret it.
This say :
" Ne peuvent être pratiqués que par les docteurs en médecine […] les actes médicaux suivants :
[…]
_ Tout mode d’épilation, sauf les épilations à la pince ou à la cire."
If I try to translate this the best I could (sorry for my English grammar)
I will get this :
"Only medical doctors can perform this medical procedure :
Every hair removal method, except tweezers and wax.
Indeed this is very clear : electrolysis hair removal is nor tweezer, neither wax. Thus electrolysis is considered as a medical
procedure which can be performed only by physicians.
Ok Adrien, but answer me this question:
At what point are we conducting an act that is described as a “hair removal method”? As stated, this law is extremely vague, so therefore it’s enforcability is limited in scope. When I treat a follicle, I do remove the hair with tweezers. That is the portion that is a “hair removal method” and is specifically allowed by law. The law applies this exception.I could see how this law may be applied to laser. The act of putting a probe in the follicle and applying DC or radio frequency is not in any legal sense, a “hair removal” That part is done with a tweeezers its more likely to be considered "Disabling the follicle. That isnt removing a hair, it’s preventing a new one from going which is a different act entirely. Is the act of providing DC current then a act of a doctor? This is where you need to study the law and get real advice on how it’s applied.If it’s too vague ( as this one seems to be) or isnt enforcable, then it has no legal standing to direct what you can and cannot do. You can just as well advertise yourself as a “Follicle growth disabling technician” than a “Hair removal technican”. See what I am getting at?
What specific law or language is in place that desribes the technical aspects of electrology as a “hair removal method” is this becaus this is how you think of what you are doing? How is what you are doing with electrology specifically a hair removal, except in that you are removing the hair with tweezers which is specifically listed as an exception?
Adrien, is there any legal definition that describes electrology as “hair removal” and if there is how is one act of removing a hair with tweezers different than another?
Just as a side note, I’m going to say “Come on Down and comment please Mr James Walker” . When it comes to sorting out what you can and cannot do in terms of electrology, he is the man to help you sort through these regulations. He’s done the same for me on a number of occasions. If anyone on this board can help to change your view, or indeed help in how to challenge any law in effect, it’s him. So James, I’m calling you out! Give us your best advice! Lets see that brain giving what it can to this question!
Seana
Please apologize Seana, I didn’t translate the full text of the law, but the full text is available in the previous link.
Article 2
Modifié par Arrêté du 13 avril 2007 - art. 1, v. init.
Ne peuvent être pratiqués que par les docteurs en médecine, conformément à l’article L. 372 (1°) du code de la santé publique, les actes médicaux suivants :
1° Toute mobilisation forcée des articulations et toute réduction de déplacement osseux, ainsi que toutes manipulations vertébrales, et, d’une façon générale, tous les traitements dits d’ostéopathie, de spondylothérapie (ou vertébrothérapie) et de chiropraxie.
2° Le massage prostatique.
3° Le massage gynécologique.
4° Tout acte de physiothérapie aboutissant à la destruction si limitée, soit-elle des téguments, et notamment la cryothérapie, l’électrolyse, l’électro-coagulation et la diathermo-coagulation.
5° Tout mode d’épilation, sauf les épilations à la pince ou à la cire.
6° Toute abrasion instrumentale des téguments à l’aide d’un matériel susceptible de provoquer l’effusion du sang (rabotage, meulage, fraisage).
7° (supprimé)
8° Audiométrie tonale et vocale à l’exclusion des mesures pratiquées pour l’appareillage des déficients de l’ouïe, en application des dispositions de l’article L. 510-1 du code de la santé publique.
Electrolysis hair removal is considered as a hair removal method because the purpose of this treatment is to permanently removing the treated hair. All reasonable person can understand it.
I appreciate your help Seana but in French we do understand very clearly what electrolysis is about, I can not play with words in order to pass trough the law.
This law is, unfortunately, very clear.
I have no doubt about the linguistic competences of James Walker, however in this Article 2 of the law it is said that electrolysis, electro-coagulation and diathermy are considered as a medical procedure as well ( line #4).
The French Justice Court also strictly observes the law. For exemple, some estheticians were condamned because of using IPL machine…
Every non-physicians practicing a hair removal method in France can be accused of illegal medecin practice. This is a fact, whatever the way you want to interpret the law. For the Justice there is a single way to interpret it, sadly.
I don’t want to take the risk to be denounced if I work as a electrologist in France, even if I call myself “folicle growth disabling technician”. Electrolysis in purpose of removing hair or remove telangiectasia is considered as a medical procedure here. I don’t want neither to work in the back of a doctor. This is why my purpose is about changing the law, no changing the way I understand the law.
This is why I specifically mentioned Adriene how the law is interpreted and enforced . This makes the difference .
So since you seem to understand this law, both in wording (which can differ from language to language) and in how it is enforced, what processes exist with which to challenge or change it.
I’m not suggesting you skirt any laws. I’m asking how is it enforced, how is it enforced, what makes it a law, and what terms are describing what is being done. And what must happen for this to be corrected? You cannot correct any law if you do not know how it is applied.
Seana
Changing a law is not an easy thing, but I hope to get the support of maximum people as possible to create a sort of “citizen lobby”.
Thank you, Seana, for your help, I hope we will get the support of all the members of this forum as well.
In order to mobilize French citizens, Josefa and I will make a video very soon. We will put the link on this forum and we hope it will be shared on the internet.
Ok Adrien
Advocacy of citizens is likely an important first step in this process. So in that sense what you are doing makes sense.
From a little that has been described to me by other parties today I have a sense too of the history behind this law. When it was implemented it was at the encouragement of dermatologists who saw this as a way to increase income from their practises. But the majority of medical professionals and dermatology offices in france are not interested in providing this service. I feel you should probably aim for advicacy amoung this group. If you can show that the doctors are not interested in restricting this service, and that it contributes to the deterioration of mental state because of restricted access, then you stand a good chance of changing the law. You wiill however have to go through what the channels are availability, and advocacy and education are only the first step. You will need a politician on your side to bring forth a bill probably. So find out what these processes entail.
And that’s indead Your only chance.
But it is really hard to work against the medical lobby. Physicians are not interested in electrolysis, but they are interested in earning money throught the beauty industry. And they are interested in keeping possible competitors out of business. (I tend to believe that this is the background of the explicit law).
So i would suggest to settle down somewhere in Spain, Germany, Luxembourg where Electrologists are allowed to work (i don’t know about Belgium), maybe close to the french border, and target the french market from there (thanks to open borders You could still live in France and travel to Your office). It should be allowed to advertize for electrolysis treatments in the neighbouring countries of france - it would actually violate European legislation to forbid that.
That will give You the monetary background and possibly even some argumentation - “i need to go abroad to work as an Electrologist and to really help people with hair problems”.
@Seana : I don’t know any politician who will want to support me - at least for the moment. Indeed it will be a good thing to have one or some politicians in my side, you are right on this point. However we have to do first, only with citizen support.
@Beate : thank you for your wise message. You are right, of course the medical lobby want to control the beauty industry the more as they can.
What you suggested is, of course, a good idea to work legally as an electrologist. However I want to make all it could be possible on my side to change this law, because it is completely unfair.