Search

The recent PIP scandal that affected patients worldwide, and received extensive media coverage, led to concerns being felt by patients about the ‘risks’ of cosmetic surgery. Theories about regulation and risk refer to societies such as those in the West becoming more risk averse. Regulation, in turn, has come to be seen as an instrument to solve a problem for a community seen to be or which perceives itself to be at risk. The political and electoral risk acknowledged by government if it ignores that concern, or at least media coverage of it, can lead to regulation, or the tightening up of regulation, as a response. This article looks at current proposals for legislation in the UK following the PIP silicone implant scandal as an example of the risk-regulation premise. Are cosmetic surgery patients in the UK now going to see stricter regulation of the cosmetic surgery industry? The article argues that the UK and France have both reacted to healthcare scandals and the ensuing societal conception of risk by drawing up more thorough legislation on cosmetic surgery than previously existed. France enacted the Kouchner law in 2002 and the UK government published the Keogh Report in April 2013. A comparison is made of these to establish whether the UK can learn from the French legislation when it comes to drafting actual regulation in the future, perhaps in 2014. Finally, some arguments are made about whether risk aversion may make better law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the role of the precautionary principle (PP) in transforming the French regulatory landscape for genetically modified organisms used in food and agriculture over the last decade. Despite few explicit references to the PP, we argue that it has been instrumental. The changes do not result from a linear top-down process, as in the application of a new law. Instead, the PP has acted as a point of articulation for debates in different public arenas; through these debates, the PP has been progressively translated into pragmatic practices. New boundaries have been drawn between risk assessment and risk management practices. This has facilitated the progressive emergence of a distinct arena of scientific expertise and opens the possibility for the reciprocal emancipation of public decision and scientific expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]