Laser hair removal professionals directory
Laser B
2001
q
February 3, The
BOM held yet another rules hearing at the request of the FSD. No vote
was taken. Electrologists are still in limbo! Their rules package
still has not passed! They are told that they still are not allowed
to use light based technology because their rule package has not been
passed. Chapter 478 – the electrolysis practice act – was changed to
incorporate the use of new light based technology over 20 months prior
to this. When statute 120.54 (1)(2)(b)
(below) was
brought to the attention of the BOM attorney, electrologists were told
that this law did not apply to this case.
120.54 (1)(2)(b) Whenever an act of the
legislature is enacted which requires implementation of the act by rules
of an agency within the executive branch of state government, such rules
shall be drafted and formally proposed as provided in this section
within 180 days after the effective date of the act, unless the act
provides otherwise.
q
The same fraudulent photo
that was used in the 2000 legislature appeared in the 02-03-01 BOM
agenda.
q
March 30,
BOM meeting votes again to adopt the
Medical Assistant language requiring no physician on site.
q
Electrologists hold
“Electrolysis Day” in the capital a few days prior to the beginning of
the legislative session. Electrologists are able to demonstrate laser
technology to Gov. Bush! (photo below)
q
Our opposition sent the
investigative services to the Capital to try to shut the electrologists
down. Since they were in compliance with the current laws, the
investigative services allowed the demonstration to continue.
q
The legislative session
began with electrologists submitting a bill that would allow general
supervision for licensed electrologists using lasers for hair removal.
(language below)
q
FMA & FSD again
submit the same fraudulent photo of skin damage to the legislature.
Electrologists were able to show that this photo is fraudulent and its
purpose was intended to be misleading. We illustrated the smallest spot
size available in the industry of laser hair removal equipment as a
comparison to the photo that was shown.
(comparison photos below)
 |
 |
8 mm spot size
(smallest in the industry) |
9 X 9
mm spot size (this is the equipment that the FMA stated was used
in the fraudulent photo) |
Fraudulent Photo
q
Representative Siplin
(attorney) examined the weak documentation that the FMA/FSD produced,
and recommended that the photo be rejected as any credible evidence. He
stated that this documentation would be thrown out of a court of law.
q
An FMA & FSD dermatologist
referred to electrologists as “monkeys” during his testimony at the
House Health Care committee meeting.
q
No documentation has ever
been produced to indicate that consumers are in danger from
electrologists who are trained, certified and using lasers for hair
removal.
q
FMA lobbyist, Tim Deratany announced
that laser hair removal is now a more important issue to his clients
than nursing home reform!
q
FMA realizes that
electrologists will win in the House; our bill is placed on their “radar
screen”; our bill is dead within hours.
o
Tattoos & permanent
cosmetics (both invasive procedures) continue to be regulated under
general supervision. The FMA believes that laser hair removal (a
non-invasive procedure) is deemed to be more dangerous! The Mayo clinic
states that laser hair removal is safer than electrolysis:
§
Volume 16, #3, 2000 – Mayo Clinical
Update: “Laser hair removal is safer, more comfortable, and more
effective than traditional electrolysis”. “Electrolysis may cause
scarring, hypo-pigmentation, or hyper-pigmentation”.
q
Two years have painfully
dragged by and electrologists still don’t have a rules package passed.
They are told that they cannot use light based equipment until this
rules package is passed. They are again told that the statute below
does not apply to their situation.
120.54 (1)(2)(b) Whenever an act of the
legislature is enacted which requires implementation of the act by rules
of an agency within the executive branch of state government, such rules
shall be drafted and formally proposed as provided in this section
within 180 days after the effective date of the act, unless the act
provides otherwise.
q
BOM continues to support
supervision with no physician on site.
q
FSD/FMA is not getting the
cooperation from the BOM that they need to take over and monopolize the
hair removal industry. They filed a lawsuit with an administrative law
judge. The judge later dismissed
the case.
q
September 12, the rules
package has finally passed with direct supervision and responsibility,
requiring no physician on site!
o
Additionally, electrologists
are required to be nationally certified, complete an approved 30 hour
training course, and have $100,000 of malpractice insurance.
CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PAGE 4
|
