By Antonis Glykis and Christina Avgousti
From fuller lips to BBLs (Brazilian Butt Lifts), patients seek the perfect celebrity/influencer-inspired look. However, when reality falls short of expectations, the red-carpet expectations can quickly turn into a legal runway.
While there is ample Cypriot case law on medical negligence, cases specifically involving cosmetic surgery are peculiarly limited. The principles in medical negligence cases such as, duty of care, breach, causation and damages still apply, and the courts should be ready to give the legal framework concerning cosmetic surgery the “lift” it desperately needs.
For many patients, the painful truth is that the law is not always ready to defend them when appearance and expectation clash and they are left with permanent scarring, complications and disfigurement. The reason for this is mainly because many patients seek cheaper or faster cosmetic treatments and often disregard the necessity for the proper licensing of practitioners and adequate medical standards. Many patients bypass the imperative need for valid informed consent processes and most importantly they ignore the impossibility of legal recourse in case of malpractice.
In Cyprus, tort law can provide avenues for remedy, but cosmetic surgery raises special challenges; distinguishing between medical negligence, informed consent failures and the limits of what courts consider an “acceptable risk”.
Cosmetic enhancements have become increasingly popular in Cyprus. With regards to cosmetic surgery procedures, surgeons and clinics are still bound by the same general principles of care. If a cosmetic treatment deviates from what a reasonable professional would do in similar circumstances, there may be liability.
In Cyprus, a potential claim arising from botched treatments would generally be pursued under medical negligence and Cap. 148-The Civil Wrongs Law. Specifically, the patient should be able to prove that the surgeon, or practitioner owed a duty of care during the cosmetic procedure; this duty was breached by failing to meet the standard of care expected of a competent professional; the breach caused the patient’s injury or harm; the patient suffered actual damages.
EU law takes this a step further and provides patients with important rules on patient rights and consumer protection (e.g., Directive 2011/24/EU on cross-border healthcare and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC). Consequently, a wronged patient may choose the path that gives the best remedy such as damages, contractual remedies, or redress for misleading advertising.
Unlike emergency medical treatment, cosmetic procedures are elective, meaning that informed consent is crucial. Therefore, patients must be told about the nature of the procedure, risks, possible complications, alternatives as well as recovery time.In Cyprus, the law recognises that failure to obtain valid consent constitutes a breach of duty, even if the surgeon performed well. Specifically, the harm may lie not just in the physical injury, but in the loss of autonomy, bodily integrity, or psychological distress brought about.
In Cyprus, the Patients’ Rights Law No. 1(I)/2005 (“Law on Safeguarding and Protection of Patients’ Rights”) expressly governs informed consent among patient‐doctor relationships. This law enshrines the principle that health interventions may only occur after the person concerned has given free and informed consent. If practitioners neglect this duty, they risk tort liability not only for physical injury but also for violating patients’ right to bodily autonomy and integrity, principles protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8), to which Cyprus is a party.
Whilst it may seem that the courts are being asked to judge whether a BBL is sufficiently “perky”, the task they face is far from straightforward, as quantifying aesthetic harm presents a significant challenge. Judges will need to consider physical damage, future medical costs, corrective surgery, and the psychological impact all intertwined with the legal framework which forms the basis of medical negligence cases.
A significant complication arises, however, from the proliferation of cosmetic procedures in unlicensed “clinics” not only in the Republic of Cyprus but also in the occupied part of the island where there is no regulatory oversight. Whilst EU standards mandate the use of approved medical devices and products (e.g., fillers), ensuring safety and traceability, it is evident that these standards are often bypassed, simultaneously complicating the legal landscape and patient protection.
Antonis Glykis is a partner and Christina Avgousti is an associate at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC
