Clinics Talk About Safety—Is It Up to Consumers to Fact-Check?

Recent news coverage has brought the issue of safety at cosmetic clinics into sharper focus.

From the consumer's perspective, however, there is a problem with how clinics communicate: all clinics market themselves as safe.

It’s easy to write about patient safety on a website. It’s easy to talk about it in an Instagram video. It’s easy to make safety and ethics the focus of your marketing.

It is harder to know whether the words reflect reality.

Talk is cheap

The events of this spring and summer have shown that cosmetic clinics’ own claims about safety are not enough. Even those clinics where authorities have found serious shortcomings in their operations have always emphasized safety in their marketing.

“Those treatments are so pointless!”

Alongside the debate on safety, there is also a moral debate taking place. On social media, people are debating whether cosmetic treatments are a good or bad thing, whether it is wrong to provide and market cosmetic injections, and whether someone who undergoes such treatments can be happy at all.

The debate on ethics in the industry is also an important one. However, a moral debate will not solve the security problem, which has become particularly evident this year.

A cosmetic clinic is advertising—who checks the facts?

Why should consumers have to decide for themselves whether a company's promises can be trusted?

Why should a customer have to figure out for themselves what is being injected into their skin, how the industry is regulated, or whether a particular clinic’s safety claims are true?

These matters should not be the consumer's responsibility.

In *Helsingin Sanomat*, Tukes Senior Inspector Annina Nyholm described the current situation as unfair and unsustainable from the perspective of the average consumer. That is an apt description. (HS, July 24, 2026)

It should be possible to use all kinds of services without extensive prior knowledge.

– Annina Nyholm, Tukes

As long as cosmetic treatments are legal in Finland and widely available, the rules should be such that consumers can trust that they will be enforced without having to do their own research.

Companies market their services. That's part of doing business. Companies have to make a profit if they want to stay in business.

Small businesses that provide injection therapy are also an important part of Finland’s economy and employment. Calling the entire industry into question may not be the right solution.

The solution is to establish rules that allow honest business owners to thrive and enable consumers to undergo cosmetic treatments with peace of mind.

Safety can't just be marketing talk

Safety at aesthetic clinics must be based on clear requirements, transparent operations, and effective oversight.

In that case, the consumer doesn't have to decide who tells the most convincing story.

Consumers should be able to trust that all Finnish clinics meet the minimum requirements.

SOURCES:

Helsingin Sanomat. Oversight of aesthetic treatments sparks debate—regulation of the industry needs reform.
Published in 2026.

Helsingin Sanomat. Articles on the regulation and oversight of aesthetic treatments. Published 2018–2026

Yle. News report on the authorities' oversight of aesthetic treatments. Published in 2026.

Regional State Administrative Agency for Western and Central Finland (LVV). Supervision and suspension decisions concerning aesthetic treatments, 2026.

Marcus Aurelius. *To Myself*, p. 180.