Dermatologists remain free to publicise their surgical skills and experience under the recently reformed national law, provided they avoid the term ‘surgeon’, AHPRA’s chief lawyer says.

It comes amid a series of court cases over restrictions on the use of the ‘surgeon’ title, introduced last year as part of the federal government’s crackdown on the cosmetic industry.

Under the changes, a medical practitioner will only be able to use the title if they are registered in one of the recognised specialties of surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology or ophthalmology.

Dermatologists, including those with additional qualifications, will no longer be free to use longstanding titles such as ‘Mohs surgeon’ or ‘dermatological surgeon’, with those who recklessly and knowingly hold onto the title, including by failing to update their website, signage and other advertising facing up to three years in prison and a $60,000 fine.

But there is nothing in the law to prevent dermatologists from informing the public about their surgical abilities, so long as they stick to the appropriate terminology, says AHPRA general counsel Jamie Orchard.

“I appreciate that it sounds like a fine distinction but it’s a really important one in respect of the legislative scheme,” he told the limbic last month.

“So the prohibition is on the use of the word surgeon and if you put an adjective in front of that like ‘dermatological surgeon’ or whatever, it is still prevented. You are still exposed to regulatory action.”

“On the other hand, saying ‘I’m a dermatologist who has x years of experience in undertaking this particular form of surgery’ is acceptable, because you’re not using a title.”

“You’re not describing a title, you’re actually talking about your experience and your ability to undertake a certain action, which I appreciate sounds like a fine line, but it’s really important under the national law.”

It comes amid legal action in the Federal Court of Australia involving ENT specialists seeking immunity to use the title ‘facial plastic surgeon’ alongside the term ‘otolaryngologist’.

Brought by the Australian Society of Head and Neck Surgeons, the case was launched in 2022 and predates last year’s changes, with lawyers for the society stressing its qualified members were distinct from doctors “passing themselves off as cosmetic surgeons and misleading the public as to skills they might not have”.

Reported in the SMH (link here), the society’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’.”

Speaking at the Annual Medico Legal Congress in Sydney last month, Mr Orchard said AHPRA’s legal team was watching the case closely.

“It is going to be the first time for us in which the title protection provisions have been considered at that level in Australia,” he said.

“We’ve run a number of prosecutions, generally a dozen or so every year, but generally they don’t get beyond the magistrate’s court so we don’t have a lot of authority in respect of those provisions and what they actually mean. So this will be quite a significant decision for us.”

Nevertheless, he said the regulator had generally attempted to educate practitioners on their legal requirements, rather than proceeding directly with sanctions.

“What we find… is that the vast majority are going to comply with the requirements if they understand what the requirements are and how to comply with them,” he said.

“So generally, if we bring a shortcoming to their attention, then they are likely to address it and fix it with no further action required.”

“I should add also that it’s not a criminal offence under the national law for a medical practitioner to use the title if they’re not qualified. But it is a provision that allows for disciplinary action to be taken if there’s a breach.”