The letter from Professor K. Satku, director of medical services, cited three reasons for MOH to act:
The drug concoctions used in some treatments not having been approved for such use by the Health Sciences Authority.
The treatments in question include mesotherapy, in which a drug cocktail is injected to dissolve fat; stem-cell jabs to create a smoother complexion; and endermologie, which involves the use of a motorised massager to rid the body of cellulite and toxins.
There has been some confusion, especially among doctors who offer these treatments, which MOH has likened to 'snake oil' because they have not been backed by science.
While some doctors have not heard from MOH, some others have been asked to show proof that such treatments work; if they are unable to do so, they should cease offering them.
In his letter, Prof Satku reminded doctors that they are not supposed to offer patients 'management plans or remedies that are not generally accepted by the profession, except in the context of a formal and approved clinical trial'.
In other words, doctors should not offer unproven treatments as part of their normal services, unless they make clear to their patients that these treatments are experimental.
On Sunday, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan revealed plans to tighten regulations on who can provide higher-risk aesthetic treatments and to spell out the training required and where such treatments should be carried out. However, he left the drawing up of guidelines on the less-risky procedures promising 'dubious' benefits to the professional bodies.
Madam Halimah Yacob, who heads the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Health, said yesterday that the guidelines 'should have been issued much earlier in the interest of both patients and doctors'.
She expressed the hopethat the two bodies - the College of Family Physicians and the Academy of Medicine - would now come up with them quickly, and called for public education on the 'possible risks' behind such procedures.
But fellow GPC member, Dr Lam Pin Min, a practising ophthalmologist, felt that it was not fair of MOH to label some treatments as 'snake oil'.
He said: 'Our final clinical decision and recommendation is a combination of research evidence, clinical expertise and patient preference.'
Yesterday, the heads of both the Academy of Medicine and the College of Family Physicians supported the stand taken by MOH.
Professor Ho Lai Yun, master of the academy, said that because aesthetic medicine is such a grey area, doctors should go beyond just doing no harm, to ensuring that patients get 'actual benefits'.
Associate Professor Goh Lee Gan, president of the college, advised the public 'to regard the 11 procedures as, at best, unproven'' for now, adding that 'the potential of harm is undefined''.
The Singapore Medical Council told The Straits Times last night that its Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines advise doctors to be advocates for their patients' care and well-being, to endeavour to ensure that patients suffer no harm by providing 'competent, compassionate and appropriate medical care'.
salma@sph.com.sg
