by Alan Petersen
Growing old is generally viewed in negative terms in our society. And our individualistic and consumerist approach to health care leads us to believe that it’s within our power to alter the “biological clock” — if we are willing and able to pay.
But while lifespans may be increasing (largely due to improvements in living standards), there’s no evidence that medicine can alter the process of human biological ageing.
Still, numerous so-called anti-ageing treatments are currently advertised and available for purchase via the internet. These cover a broad spectrum, including cosmetic treatments, hormone replacement therapies, implants, prosthetic devices and stem cell treatments. Some providers even offer the treatments as part of a packaged holiday, offering surgery alongside sand and sunshine.
In Australia, some common treatments include non-surgical facelifts, anti-wrinkle injections and “dermal fillers”, permanent hair removal and laser treatments.
Consumer organisation, Choice, has questioned some of the claims of those advertising anti-ageing treatments. In a review of such treatments, Choice notes, for instance, that there’s “no such thing as a ‘non-surgical’ face-lift”, and that such procedures “won’t last as long as a surgical face-lift.”
Despite the advertising of questionable claims, the anti-ageing industry is difficult to regulate.
One of the greatest challenges for regulating a market like this is that many treatments are advertised directly to consumers over the internet. If not available in Australia, treatments can almost certainly be purchased overseas. Clever advertising techniques give the impression that there’s an effective treatment for almost any age-related “condition”.
Another challenge for regulators is that the term “anti-ageing” is difficult to pin down. Treatments that were long part of complementary and alternative medicine have been relabelled as “anti-ageing”. These include using antioxidants, vitamins and homeopathic products.
Some treatments that have actually undergone clinical trials and are used for treating conditions such as sexual dysfunction and heart disease have been relabelled to join the anti-ageing marketplace. And there are newer, clinically unproven treatments such as stem cell therapies, that are mostly only available for purchase overseas.
Clearly, many groups have a stake in the “anti-ageing industry”. Chief among these are the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies that stand to profit from the sale of new pills, potions, prosthetic devices, and implants. And then there are numerous clinics and private hospitals that profit from providing the treatments.
The “anti-ageing industry” has grown from a low base to reach a net worth of $88 billion in just ten years. An industry newsletter predicts that it will be worth nearly $300 billion by 2015.
If these predictions are to be believed, many consumers will, in coming years, be submitting themselves to many treatments that are clinically unproven and potentially harmful. At minimum, these treatments may be ineffective. There’s also the risk that people may be financially exploited.
The irony is, by making ageing a disease, the anti-ageing industry may in fact create illnesses.
There have been some reported increased rates of adverse events, including death, among healthy elderly people resulting from the use of human growth hormones. Adverse effects have also been associated with the use of stem cell-based cosmetics.
Older people are at greater risk because they may be taking multiple prescription drugs and may suffer harm from the interaction of supplements and drugs. Despite these potential multiple risks, there has been relatively little public debate about the pros and cons of the anti-ageing treatment market.
Growing old may not be desirable, but it is inevitable. In the end, it is better to live healthy, active lives for as long as possible with minimal medical intervention.
Professor Alan Petersen is a leading sociologist based in the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University.
Take time out to to hear Monash authors in conversation
It is scarcely possible to pass an hour in honest conversation, without being able, when…
The truth about meat and three veg
Food memory can be a shifty beast, often determined by our own experiences in adult…
Transcending testimony: an interview with filmmaker Deepa Dhanraj
by Shweta Kishore Deepa Dhanraj is a filmmaker and feminist whose extensive filmography spans issues of…
New Colombo Plan Scholarships – Explore Indonesia this Summer!
The Faculty of Arts is excited to announce that it has been awarded 30 scholarships for its…
Predestination: time is of the essence at MIFF 2014
by Andréa Jean Baker And so, the 63rd Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF) is here….
Who owns the myths and legends of the Great War centenary?
By Ben Wellings and Shanti Sumartojo When prime minister Tony Abbottdeclared at Villers-Bretonneux that “no place…
Ten Monash researchers become ARC Future Fellows
Monash researchers will explore the oldest stars in the galaxy, transform the manufacturing of high…
Troops in Terror Zone ‘cutting edge’ in journalism
Monash University’s journalism and multimedia students have joined forces with The Australian editorial team to produce a…
Express Yourself: why do World Cup stars matter?
It’s been a terrible World Cup. Germany and Argentina in the final. Again.
Monash student goes to the United Nations
Alistair Bayley visited the United Nations in New York as one of the winners of the Many Languages, One World essay contest.
Shanghai recently hosted the 3rd World Cultural Forum (WCF) – a Chinese initiative aimed at creating a forum for intercultural dialogue not dominated by ‘the West’. This year it chose the rather apt theme of ‘soft power’.
Welfare review fails to understand Australia’s labour market
The interim report of the Review of Australia’s Welfare System, led by former Mission Australia CEO Patrick McClure, is a vexed piece of work.