Our disturbing story of cosmetic surgery reveals that patients are more prepared than ever to undergo bodily alteration in the quest for physical perfection. Our report shows a clear need for better regulation of the private health sector. Currently, the industry profiting from the boom in cosmetic surgery is largely untroubled by rules. Around 75,000 people each year undergo invasive procedures which involve altering their anatomy, and which carry grave risks. Investigations show that not all doctors performing them are even trained in cosmetic surgery.
Why has this area lain neglected for so long? We welcome the review ordered by Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, into the murkier Harley Street practices surrounding cosmetic surgery.
But the dilemma for policy-makers is how far the state should act to protect consumers who may be quite prepared to take upon themselves the risks, both financial and physical, associated with such procedures. Should they not be allowed to?
This question is easier to tackle when the state must act for the greater public good. Britain was an early exponent of drink-driving laws intended to save lives. There is no choice but to limit alcohol when we get behind the wheel. It is harder to make the case for protecting individuals who risk only their own health, as we now see in arguments opening up over food. Should the Government act against junk-food manufacturers in protecting us from the dangers of obesity, or is it no one's business but our own what we choose to we eat?
A new Fabian Society report questions the notion that people's quality of life is automatically improved by the freedom to consume at will. That applies not just to cosmetic surgery but also to choices we make that have impacts on, say, global warming. Consumer freedom needn't always be pitted against public interference. Better public transport and congestion charging, for example, gives us all a better quality of life. Regulation may help us make wiser choices. Sometimes, governments must risk jibes about the 'nanny state'.
