Unwanted hair: What should a woman do — and not do?

Press, 7 April 1978, Page 13

Unwanted hair: What should a woman do — and not do?

More New Zealand women are seeking treatment for the removal of unwanted hair. Their search for relief from a distressing condition has lead to a proliferation of methods claiming to be the latest technological advance, the new miracle cure. Most women are hypersensitive about unwanted hair. They find it difficult to talk about what they feel is a very real problem. For many, seeking a cure takes courage. Mostly, they fear ridicule. This sensitivity makes them particularly susceptible to “miracle” cures. Advertisements promising a painless treatment, and implying a permanent cure, can be irresistible. Induced to spend large sums of money, women’s fear of exposure usually ensures their silence if the treatment fails. Dubious cures for baldness in men have been able to flourish for years in a similar climate. . , . Women tn Christchurch, Auckland, and Dunedin have been spending 527 to $3O an hour on a new, much-advertised method claiming to be the painless answer to their problem. .. i “The Press” has spoken to a number of women who believe thev have not benefited from the treatment.

One woman who spent $6OO found that the hair growth on her face, which appeared after hormone treatment for a medical problem, had coarsened and darkened. It is common for women to spend $BO to $lOO just to “give the treatment a chance.” Recently, the case of two Auckland women who spent a total of $338 on Depilatron treatment during several months was reported. They have had their money re’funded. They paid this money — in one case $214 in the other $124 — to Hairworks, at Haywrights, St Lukes, for “Depilatron,” described in the advertisement as “totally effective, safe and painless hair removal.” The women described a free consultation at which they say they were told several sessions at $3O an hour would be needed, not just to tackle existing hair, but growth which could be stimulated by the process itself. With the assurance that the process would work for them, they began their $3O-an-hour sessions, after signing a document denying them any comeback should re-growth occur. Advised to have several treatments a week, both women decided instead to have just a few treatments

then wait for at least six weeks to see if hairs reappeared. When new growth came through they were upset and angry Hairworks suggested they must have a hormonal imbalance which caused the hair to grow. They went for a urine test. The results were negative. Both women referred to depilation advertising, pointing out it had not been “totally effective” for them. They felt Hairworks should have been more guarded about the potential of the process and suggested the firm should automatically send every client for a hormone test before accepting a fee and beginning treatment. The two women were told that Depilatron had been approved in New Zealand by a medical board. The Department of Health (the only sanctioning “board”) denied giving any such approval. Eventually, the women were refunded the money they had paid out by Haywrights. According to reports, the United States Institute of Electrolysis has banned the use by its members of a new machine now appearing in New Zealand. It has not been banned in Britain or Australia. Mrs Pauline Smith, of Christchurch, who. with her husband, has imported

Depilatron machines from Australia, has complete faith in this method, which employs electronic tweezers. She says that women become impatient after a number of treatments, although they are told at the start that Depilatron is not an “over-night” cure. According to Mrs Smith, it is impossible to estimate the time a cure will take. Most women did not realise how much potential for hair growth was contained under the skin. They thought the hair they plucked out one week was the same hair re-appearing the next week. But the growth cycle of hair was 12 to 15 weeks. Her salon had many happy clients who accepted that successful treatment would take a long time. She was treating the “worst cases,” many of

whom had been plucking facial hair for years. In the first four or five months of operation she had been inundated by women seeking treatment. About 400 women had consulted the salon. The cost did not seem to be a major consideration with women who continued treatment, because they wanted a painless treatment which could be undertaken several times a week if necessary. “I’ve been trained in electrolysis in Australia,” says Mrs Smith. “I have my diploma in it. I believe the Depilatron method is a long-awaited advance.” Many women troubled by unwanted hair use the temporary expedient of creams or waxes, or pluck daily. The former can often be irritating to sensitive skins. Creams and waxes also remove any

fine down, as well as the coarse hair. Plucking and shaving coarsens hair and promotes growth. “Consumer” findings have questioned the effectiveness of some newer, home treatments such as a Swiss cream, and a needle-type gadget. Electrolysis is the best, known method of permanent removal of existing hair growth — but it will not prevent new growth. Even treated areas may need minor “maintenance” treatments about twice a year. Electrolysis and diathermy are recognised by many doctors. But the skill of the operator is paramount. A bad operator can cause considerable pain, and sometimes permanent scarring. The aid of highly-mag-nifying spectacles allows a needle to be inserted along the hair follicle

without puncturing the skin. The very fine needle is insulated. Only the tip carries the electric current which freezes the hair root. The treatment causes a moderately sharp pinpricking pain to which some women, and some areas of the skin, are more sensitive than others. t Fear of being treated with a needle puts many women off trying electrolysis. But the soundness of the princinle seems indisputable. The needle penetrates right to the hair root, the heart of the problem. The effectiveness of other “electric” methods, claiming to employ other factors, such as the hair itself to conduct the current, is open to question. Research into the causes of growth of facial and body hair is under

way in many countries. A research programme was set up several years ago at Princess Margaret Hospital. The growth is most . frequently attributed to ; hormone imbalance. The I contraceptive pill is said ' to contribute to increased body and facial hair growth. Some doctors maintain the condition is hereditary. One Christchurch electrolysis operator has patients sent to her by doctors from as far away as Nelson and the West Coast. She has treated several mothers and their daughters. More than half her patients are young women, many of them teen-agers. An 18-year-old patient she is still treating came to her when she was 15. In Canada, demands are being made for registration of electrolysis operators, and for a set scale of fees. But registration would not provide guaranteed protection against inept operators. Women have to protect themselves against ineffective treatment and scarring. Women should consult their doctor first, or choose an operator who has been personally recommended. They should not continue unsatisfactory treatment in the hope

that it will improve. They should watch whether the operator uses both hands — a skilled technique providing the best resul's. There should be no sensation of the hair being pulled. Treatment can take about a year, or longer. The concentration will depend on the individual. Mrs Ellen O’Donovan is emphatic that her patients must not apply home remedies such as plucking or shaving, which will promote hair growth and prolong the cure. Doctors’ attitudes are now becoming generally more enlightened. But women report that some doctors still lack an understanding of the psychological effects of unwanted hair.

Arguments are being advanced that electrolysis is a para-medical treatmerit which should be covered by a social security benefit. Some regulations, it seems, should be devised to combat the ease with which new, medically unproved treatments can be established, and advertised. A I I advertisements claiming radical advancements in treatment should be critically examined. Propaganda for the latest methods available imply a permanent cure, while being careful not to say so explicitly. “Consumer” magazine is now conducting a survey of women who have had treatment by one of the new “no-needle” methods.

Are the New Zealand women seeking a cure for unwanted hair choosing the best treatment? LEONE STEWART looks at reaction to a new method introduced here recently from overseas, and the effectiveness of established treatments. Since this report was compiled the fee for an hour of Depilatron treatment in Christchurch has been reduced to $24.