Instead of the one-shot unsafe services occurred and excessive high mark-up on prices, the majority reason for DRY beauty center to be unethical business is the “deceptive promotion”. Deceptive promotion is the practice of misrepresenting the product’s features or performance or luring the customers to the store for a bargain that is out of stock. (Kettle & Armstrong, 2009) In order to push sales volume, two old staff of DRY divulged that they were told by the company not to mention all related risks of products to customers hen they are selling products.
Whatever courses of treatment customers chose, salesman would also advertise and emphasize the products belonging to product of health care or protection, intentionally concealing all the risks brought by products or services which may pose dangers for one’s health or even to death at worst, for example, hiding the negative consequence of a “Frozen liposuction machine”. Secondly, exaggerated promotion magnified the “Professional” which the characteristic DRY claims to possess. Products, however, undoubtedly do not eave any proof of whether they have passed the rigorous scientific examination satisfying an international or local standard.
That in turn demonstrates that DRY’S advertising and promotions are misleading its customers by providing some information that is neither fact nor truth. For example, Technology of a Stem Cell therapy has no proof of any scientific examination, with only claim of “professional” According to AMA code of ethics, “Honesty is to be forthright in dealings with customer and stakeholders in order to strive to be truthful in all situations ND at all times, offering products of value that do what we claim in our community’.
In DRY’S case, however, it is obvious that it violated the ethical value of Honesty by concealing about the risk a treatment might bring when promoting. Alongside the Honesty, Fairness states “marketer should represent products in a clear way in selling, advertising and other forms of communication; this includes the avoidance of false, misleading and deceptive promotion”. What DRY did is contrast to Fairness that DRY’S advertising misleads its customers for he “Professional” term, which DRY in no way possesses any approved or restricted license issued by any International or local institutions.
Fairness also states “Reject manipulations and sales tactics that harm customer trust”. DRY did manipulate and control what the unfavorable wording salesman avoids using for the fear that they would lose their customers because of the unsafe products. (AMA Statement of ethics) This case is very similar to that of Lehman Brothers, which involves deceptive promotion of hiding risks behind the products. What only different is involving human life in Dry’s.
It is not the first time the safety of products has been questioned, not until the government acts will be the last. The government is the part to be blamed for turning a blind eye to the unscrupulous practices of these beauty parlors. Everyone knows that it requires statutory monitoring and stringent regulation for high-risk procedures, such as blood processing, transfusions and Bottom injection. It is apparent that a lack of regulation has allowed the lines between medical, health and beauty treatment to be blurred in Hong Kong.
Therefore, the legislative council should take the lead cooperating with the hospital authority to reach a consensus and legislate laws, for example, to clarify the meaning of medical procedures which beauty treatment needed to be administrated by qualified practitioners and pass the authentication for safety established by government and hospital authority. While those beauty enterprises, which passed, should possess a restricted license, those private clinics that failed to get license and still provide services would be outlawed ND prosecuted.