But those without a good track record, or any newcomer, will now need the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to verify that they are qualified to perform the procedures before they can proceed.

And any doctor who wants to carry out seven other controversial treatments, such as fat-busting carboxytherapy and cellulite-reducing endermologie, will need to notify the council, and monitor patients very closely.

These seven cosmetic treatments have to be a last resort, after conventional methods have not worked.

Doctors must keep detailed records, which may be audited by the Health Ministry.

The final guidelines on aesthetic practices for doctors, which were formulated by the Academy of Medicine, the College of Family Physicians and the SMC, begin today.

They were generated in response to concern over the proliferation of cosmetic procedures being offered by doctors, including some which are banned in other countries, such as cellulite-dissolving mesotherapy.

They are intended to safeguard patients who seek beauty treatments, which may be unproven, to the tune of some $200 million a year.

The guidelines provide a detailed reference to the qualifications doctors must have in order to perform the 25 established procedures.

They will have to submit proof, for example, certificates from courses approved by the SMC, that they can do such procedures.

The SMC will take disciplinary action against doctors who flout the guidelines.

The guidelines also exempt doctors deemed to have enough experience from having to submit their credentials to the SMC.

For example, those who have given at least 30 botox injections in the last two years do not have to present their qualifications.

Associate Professor Goh Lee Gan, the president of the College of Family Physicians, called this 'an honour system'.

But if a patient makes a complaint about a botched job, then they will have to produce evidence to show they had the prerequisite experience, he said.

Regarding seven other controversial treatments, an earlier draft of the guidelines said they could only be practised under the structure of a trial.

But the final document seems less stringent, requiring that they be done 'only under highly monitored conditions that enable the efficacy or lack thereof of such procedures to be objectively demonstrated'.

Dr Benjamin Yim from the Society of Aesthetic Medicine said that it was fair to require doctors to monitor patients undergoing the seven procedures since they were less established.

Responding to the guidelines, Madam Halimah Yacob, who heads the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, said it was 'a practical approach' to exempt experienced doctors.

Both she and Dr Lam Pin Min, deputy chairman of the GPC, felt the guidelines would help raise the standards of aesthetic medicine here.

Dr Lam added: 'This is a good start and by no means the end product. The SMC should continue to monitor and review the guidelines. Many new procedures, which may seem dubious now, could become standard therapy with time.'

Madam Halimah said she hoped that beauty salons could also be covered under the guidelines.

Agreeing, Dr Yim said: 'The medical profession is not the sole provider of aesthetic services. What happens to all the patients getting treatment from non-medical providers?'

huichieh@sph.com.sg