The Australian Society of Head and Neck Surgeons (ASOHNS), the representative body for ENT doctors, has taken legal action in the Federal Court seeking immunity for qualified members to use the title “facial plastic surgeon” alongside the term “otolaryngologist”. The case was heard by Justice Melissa Perry last week, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.
The argument presented by ASOHNS is that their members, who have received training in facial surgical techniques, should be able to accurately describe themselves as facial plastic surgeons.
It is worth noting that this legal action was launched in 2022, and predates recent changes made by the federal government which restrict the use of the title “surgeon”.
The case for using the title of “surgeon”
Reported in the SMH, ASOHNS’s lawyers argued that its members trained in surgical techniques should be able to call themselves facial plastic surgeons because it is “a very accurate description of what they’re trained to do”.
“[My clients] want to describe accurately the services they provide – one of those is facial plastic surgery,” the applicant’s barrister, Stephen Lloyd, SC, told the court. “The normal English way to express that is to use the noun ‘surgeon’.”
Lloyd told the court that highly qualified ENT specialists were completely distinct from doctors “passing themselves off as cosmetic surgeons and misleading the public as to skills they might not have”.
Dr Zenia Chow, an ENT specialist based in Melbourne, submitted an affidavit stating that she had received a letter from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) instructing her to remove any reference to “facial plastic surgeon” from her advertising. Dr Chow complied with the order to avoid regulatory action, but it created confusion among her patients who sought clarification about her qualifications.
“My patients often ask me whether I am qualified as a facial plastic surgeon, or whether I simply have an interest in, and occasionally perform, facial plastic surgery without having trained in the field,” she wrote.
During the proceedings, Ahpra’s barrister, Saul Holt, KC, argued that the court should not assess individual competency, as this falls outside its jurisdiction. He also highlighted the possibility that less-qualified ENT doctors could potentially be breaking the law if they claimed to be surgeons.
“People may well go away and think this is binding … [but] any such comfort would be a false comfort,” he told the court.
Justice Perry acknowledged that there could be instances where using the term “facial plastic surgeon” would be misleading or deceptive. Nonetheless, her decision, which is yet to be announced, would provide guidance to specialists who find themselves in a similar position to Dr Chow.
“It [my decision] would be taken into account in the provision of advice to others, and it would be presumably respected by the medical board [Ahpra],” she said.
Justice Perry has reserved her decision for a later date. More to follow.
