Share This





On 1 September 2022, an Independent Review released its long-awaited Report into Cosmetic Surgery in Australia [1].

Its key recommendation reflected the sentiment of our new, peer-reviewed, paper in the American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery entitled ‘Cosmetic Surgery Regulation in Australia: Who is to be protected – Surgeons or Patients?’ [2]. The open-access publication, supported by extensive published material, urges regulators to implement changes that would require all doctors performing cosmetic surgery to be endorsed in its practice under National Law [3-20]. The research warns against the other option currently under consideration – isolated ‘title’ restriction based on existing surgical specialties with no requirement for training and competence in cosmetic surgery.

This matters because annually, 500,000 Australians undergo procedures worth $1.5bn, with per capita spend greater than the USA. Whilst such demand and social media influence has generated a huge industry, since 1999 attempts at regulation have failed due to the competing interests of surgical craft groups. Consensus could not be reached [21] and as a consequence patients have suffered avoidable harm.



From 2018 when the Council of Australian Governments Health Council (COAG HC) revisited the matter, alarming cosmetic surgical stories have been publicised. Cosmetic surgery risks have been consistently downplayed and patients placed in danger by a broken-down system.

In an industry under scrutiny, recent media coverage of six doctors has been disturbing and included cosmetic surgical disasters [22-23]. Whilst the medical practices revealed have been abhorrent, the common underlying theme has been sensationalism. Omitted from the reporting has been an understanding of cosmetic surgery, options for its regulation and a pragmatic, simple solution to enhance patient safety.

Modern cosmetic surgery is a recent development in medical practice, but current law prohibits creation of a new specialty of cosmetic surgery. Absence of a protected title therefore allows any of the more than 100,000 medical practitioners in Australia [25] to call themselves a cosmetic surgeon and practise cosmetic surgery, regardless of whether they have any formal training in it. Very few do, be they a ‘plastic surgeon’, ‘cosmetic surgeon’ or any other ‘specialist surgeon’.

Notwithstanding, Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) are campaigning to persuade the COAG HC to restrict the title ‘surgeon’ to themselves and ban ‘cosmetic surgeon’ [26-30]. That this will create a commercial monopoly for their members who perform cosmetic surgery may be coincidental but irrespective, such an approach relies upon the assumption that those to whom the title might be restricted are trained, qualified and safe to perform cosmetic surgery.

Most RACS surgeons, including plastic surgeons, are not trained and qualified in cosmetic surgery upon specialist registration. So says the Australian Medical Council (AMC), the independent national standards body for medical education and training, which recently reported that plastic surgeons trained by the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons and RACS have “a deficit” in experience of cosmetic surgery and qualify with a “gap in this area of practice” [5].

Secondly, the campaign implies patient safety enhancement by channelling all cosmetic surgery patients to plastic or other RACS surgeons holding the proposed restricted title. The inconvenient truth is that an RACS specialist surgical qualification is no guarantee of safety in cosmetic surgery [2].

In 2012-13 reports of informed consent disputes found nearly two thirds of complaints relating to cosmetic surgery procedures were against plastic surgeons and that plastic surgery was the “surgical sub-speciality of practitioners who were (most frequently) the subject of cosmetic procedure complaints” [31,32]. The Australian Senate, reporting contemporary data from AHPRA concerning complaints related to cosmetic surgery, detailed that in the three years to June 2021, 52% of practitioners who were the subject of complaints concerning “botched surgeries” and specifically cosmetic procedures, were specialist surgeons and “…mostly specialist plastic surgeons” [18]; that is, 71% of the group [10]. Intriguingly, numerous illustrative cases have formed little part of the recent media coverage [7-9,33,34].

The difficult reality, observed by the Chair of the Medical Board of Australia, is that patients being harmed by surgeons inadequately trained in cosmetic surgery applies equally to specialist surgeons, including plastic surgeons, as it does to other practitioners [35].

Such a widespread problem requires an encompassing, non-partisan solution. Internationally, in relation to identical considerations of patient safety in cosmetic surgery as those in Australia, plastic surgeons have recently stated –“We need validated evidence of hands-on competency in aesthetic surgery to keep patients safe” [36] and “In summary: qualifications per se are pretty meaningless. A qualification which comes with a guarantee of competence is something else” [37].

Accordingly, our new research argues that if patients are to be truly protected, a mandatory independent National Accreditation Standard for all doctors performing cosmetic surgery – including plastic surgeons, cosmetic surgeons and any other specialist surgeons – is urgently needed. The Standard must ensure core surgical training and competence, along with specific training, qualifications, objective competency and recertification in cosmetic surgery.

The mechanism already exists under s98 of Australian Health Practitioner National Law, which governs registration of doctors in Australia. It allows Government to mandate Endorsement of an Area of Practice. Designed for new areas of practice not fitting criteria for a new medical specialty, yet requiring regulatory restriction, this solution provides an immediate mechanism regulators can introduce to ensure that doctors practising cosmetic surgery are competent and safe. Precedent exists of endorsement of acupuncturists and also endorsement to administer scheduled medication by enrolled nurses.

Doctors who meet the competency Standard set by the AMC would be endorsed to perform cosmetic surgery and would be readily identifiable on the AHPRA Register. Those not meeting it would not be endorsed and would be prohibited from engaging in cosmetic surgery.

This would protect patients, remove confusion and prevent commercial monopoly formation. Competition between safe practitioners based on competence, price and service would further protect patients by improving standards. Title restriction may then have a place but only if doctors using the protected title, for example ‘cosmetic surgeon’, are competent and have met the Standard.

Politicians and regulators ought not be distracted from the central objective of the current review processes, which is to ensure patient safety [10,18,38-40]. Isolated ‘title’ protection, advocated by some specialist craft groups (who would in practice benefit commercially from the change), will not improve patient safety. It will not ensure doctors practising in cosmetic surgery are properly trained and competent and patients will continue to suffer. The Review confirmed this by its observation that “…title protection, or title protection alone, does not provide enough clarity or sufficient protection to the public and more needs to be done” [1].

When the findings of the Review, including the endorsement model, were communicated by confidential briefing to specialist practitioner representatives prior to formal publication, the outcome was reportedly as predictable as it was disappointing [41,42].

If patients, not surgeons, are to be protected, evidence must be distinguished from the muddle of vested interests and sensationalism. The natural consequence in Australia is endorsement of competent medical practitioners trained in cosmetic surgery [43,44]. Global policymakers may soon consider following suit. It is the right and only thing to do.



1. Brown A. Final report - Independent review of the regulation of medical practitioners who perform cosmetic surgery.

1 September 2022 [accessed 3 September 2022].
2. Tansley P, Fleming D, Brown T. Cosmetic Surgery Regulation in Australia: Who Is to Be Protected—Surgeons or Patients? The American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery 2022;39(3)
[accessed 13 September 2022].
3. Burd A. Deadly cosmetic surgery. BMJ Opinion 2 June 2010

[accessed 13 September 2022].
4. Burd A. What is cosmetic surgery? BMJ Opinion 18 June 2010

[accessed 13 September 2022].
5. Australian Medical Council. Specialist Education Accreditation Committee. Accreditation Report: The Training and Education Programs of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. 2017.
6. Tansley P, Hodgkinson D Brown T. Letter to the Editor: Reply to ‘Defining Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic, and Cosmetic Surgeries. What Can Get Lost and Found in Translation’ by Xian Wei, Bin Gu, Qingfeng Li. Ann Plast Surg 2020.
7. Tansley P. Opinion Piece - Knowledge and the Knife. The Daily Telegraph [online] 24 November 2020.
8. Tansley P. Opinion Piece - Cosmetic surgery industry must be reviewed as demand surges. Herald Sun 22 December 2020.
9. Tansley P. Opinion Piece - Standards need to lift in cosmetic surgery. Herald Sun 23 December 2020.
10. Fletcher M. Answers to written Questions on Notice, received from AHPRA.

11 October 2021 [accessed 13 September 2022].
11. Burd A. ‘Lie’ that a training in Plastic Surgery is a training in cosmetic surgery. LinkedIn post. 24 September 2021.
12. Tansley P. Opinion piece - Safety of patients must come first. Sydney Morning Herald

1 November 2021 [accessed 1 November 2021].
13. Bharadwaj A. There is a push for a national registry of plastic surgeons after many complaints. Daily Telegraph

28 November 2021.
14. Bharadwaj A. The ugly face of beauty. Cosmetic surgery disasters leave hundreds of Australians disfigured. Daily Telegraph 29 November 2021.
15. Bharadwaj A. The ugly face of plastic surgery. Herald Sun 29 November 2021.
16. Burd A. Claiming competences that have not been taught or assessed. LinkedIn post.

November 2021 [accessed 13 September 2022].
17. Tansley P. Invited Keynote Address. Cosmetic Surgery - myths, reality and the solution. 31st Annual Medico Legal Congress Web site.
16 March 2022 [accessed 13 April 2022].
18. Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report into Administration of registration and notifications by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and related entities under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. 1 April 2022.
19. Robinson N. College demands change. Call for cosmetic surgery overhaul.

13 June 2022 [accessed 13 June 2022].
20. Vallance J. Take cosmetic care. Board of the Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery and Medicine (Letter to the Editor). The Sydney Morning Herald 10 July 2022.
21. Thursby P. Letter to NSW Health regarding the Cosmetic Surgery Credentialling Council. 30 July 2003.
22. ABC Four Corners. Cosmetic Cowboys.

25 October 2021.
23. Toft K. 9Now. A bad look | 60 Minutes Australia.
9 June 2022.
24.    Toft K. 9Now. A worse look | 60 Minutes Australia.
Published 21 August 2022. Accessed 21 August 2022.
25. Australian Government. Department of Health and Aged Care. Medical doctors and specialists in Australia.

2022 [accessed 3 September 2022].
26. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Title of surgeon in Australia

2021 [accessed 13 September 2022].
27. Deva AK. More reason we need to ban the term “cosmetic surgeon”! Twitter post  8 January 2019.
28. Deva AK. Time for authorities to ban the term “cosmetic surgeon” and restrict the use of the title surgeon to qualified and recognized specialists. Twitter post. 29 December 2020.
29. Response to Ahpra report on cosmetic surgery by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), and the Australian Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgeons (ASOHNS).

1 September 2022 [accessed 11 September 2022].
30. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. College of Surgeons welcomes crackdown on cosmetic surgery ‘cowboys’ and restrictions on title of surgeon.

3 September 2022 [accessed 11 September 2022].
31. Bismark MM, Gogos AJ, McCombe D, et al. Legal disputes over informed consent for cosmetic procedures: a descriptive study of negligence claims and complaints in Australia. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012;65(11):1506-12.
32. Health Quality and Complaints Commission. Great expectations. A spotlight report on complaints about cosmetic surgical and medical procedures in Queensland. April 2013.
33. AHPRA media release. Tribunal reprimands practitioners for unprofessional conduct.
13 January 2015 [accessed 13 January 2015].

34. Coroners Court of Victoria. Finding into death with inquest: Inquest into the death of Lauren Katherine James. Court reference 300/07. 6 August 2010.
35. Durham P. Cosmetic surgery review to probe ‘weak safety culture’. The Medical Republic

30 November 2021 [accessed 30 November 2021].
36. Frame JD. Opinion: Who should decide the qualification to do cosmetic surgery? The PMFA Journal [online]

5 July 2022 [accessed 17 July 2022].
37. Burd A. Editorial Comment on ‘Opinion. Who should decide the qualification to do cosmetic surgery?’. The PMFA Journal [online]

5 July 2022 [accessed 17 July 2022].
38. Health Council. Consultation Regulation Impact Statement. Use of the title ‘surgeon’ by medical practitioners in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

December 2021 [accessed 13 December 2021].
39. AHPRA Review of the regulation of Health Practitioners in Cosmetic Surgery.

30 November 2021 [accessed 30 November 2021].
40. Hansard. Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into Administration of registration and notifications by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and related entities under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. 22 September 2021.
41. Ferguson A. Secret cosmetic surgery review meeting ends in revolt. Sydney Morning Herald

30 August 2022 [accessed 30 August 2022].
42. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons statement on briefing made by AHPRA and the National Medical Board of Australia.

31 August 2022 [accessed 31 August 2022].
43. Tansley P. Response: Who should decide the qualification to do cosmetic surgery? The PMFA Journal [online] 27 July 2022.
44. Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Health Ministers Meeting (HMM): Statement.

2 September 2022 [accessed 2 September 2022].



Comments are welcome
If you would like to comment on this article please contact:


Share This
Patrick Tansley

Immediate past-President Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery and Medicine.

View Full Profile