There is a particular type of occupation that seems to vex policy makers like no other. It’s actually quite difficult to define what they are, but they can be loosely described as the provision of treatments that affect the appearance and/or wellbeing of an individual. They exist in a grey area that is neither medical nor essential, and yet are often treated as such by regulatory authorities. From working within one such occupation all the way to trying to resolve these issues through Government initiatives I decided to study the subject for an MSc in Systems Thinking with the Open University
Treatments and services within these occupations are not always exclusive, so sometimes an entire occupation is singled out for derision and held to account for the actions of a few.
Within these occupations, while individuals and organisations work well in their own context, there is a constant and exhausting argument between stakeholders on a variety of issues related to injuries to customers or misinformation that takes advantage of vulnerable individuals.
To reduce friction this initiative is dedicated to providing tools, strategies, information and support to anyone who wants to improve the situation. The first step is the creation of new categories and descriptions as a starting point. These are:
Borderline – Treatments that are established and safe so long as good practice is followed. Injuries tend to occur due to unexpected events (allergic reactions, undiagnosed medical conditions) or accidents (poor training, poor risk assessment, genuine accidents). Treatments tend to maintain health or support the management of ill health.
Quasi-Medical – Treatments that look like those provided by medical professionals but are not restoring health. In fact they may even be damaging the skin or wellbeing of the customer. Even with good practice it is inevitable that adverse reactions occur, and these cannot be mitigated.
Legacy – Treatments that were established long before modern society came into being, and are usually more cultural than beneficial.
We are now 20% of the way into the 21st century so we need to discard the 20th century linear path of approaching progress. A circular process that constantly re-evaluates and improves is possible now with modern technology. If this interests you in any way then please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
P Dhanoa