Consent form for 12 year old

[tuna816]

It is not recommended by our governing bodies to use nail enhancements, including gel polish, on children. Full stop.
As responsible nail techs, that should be our advice to the OP.

But again, you are missing the point. It is already an established medical fact that a child's immune system is less developed than an adult's. But what is also a concern is the long lasting impact of developing sensitivities at a young age - burdening someone with cosmetic allergies at age 12 is very different than at age 40. Your research is faulty. A quick Googling would reveal numerous statements like this "There are medical reasons why makeup isn’t good for your young ones. First, a child’s skin is thinner and has a decreased barrier function as compared to adults, said Dr Lynn Chiam, dermatologist with Children & Adult Skin Hair Laser Clinic. The skin’s barrier function refers to its ability to keep moisture in and damaging elements out “and children’s skin is less able to defend itself against irritants,”
she said." Or this - Letting your child use makeup, hair dye or nail polish might lead to skin and hair problems. Or this, What kids should know about nail care.

Tuna, you need to back off and take counsel with yourself. When we deny the potential negative impact of our services and products, we undermine consumer faith and confidence in us. Your stubbornness in the face of facts is legendary, but your refusal to acknowledge/defer to the medical facts on this is troubling. Your conduct on this matter, as well as many others in this forum, is deeply damaging to the profession.

I fully realize the dangers of the nail profession, much more so than the general nail technician. I've said it before, I am a top tier researcher.

But lets step back to the original point. Yes, it's not advisable to give a young child acrylics, but you're not hurting them from a standpoint of their immune being weaker. If that were true, stop using shampoos, eating allergic foods, touching nickel, etc etc. All of those things can cause allergies.

You can link articles all you want, but those articles are weak and not convincing. They speak in general terms. And, doctors disagree on matters all the time. And, some doctors don't know what they are talking about when it comes to certain subjects, since it is not their expertise. Dr. OZ is a good example of this.

Again, I have a major problem with my original post being deleted. I can careless if I was wrong and proven so. The problem I have is that there are concepts that are not easily understood by people. You cannot delete post because you disagree, based on your understandings. Let people debate objectively.

 

[TheDuchess]

Tuna this is very tiring to read. You’re just arguing for the sake of it and making yourself look ridiculous. We’re all laughing at you.

You see you are making claims that are based on what you know and believe, based on your experience, training and what you have read, but it’s very obvious that you haven’t been educated to the appropriate standard for your opinion to be helpful.

Unless you are a medical doctor you must not make statements about whether a chemical poses a risk to a child’s health. In the U.K. this is an offence and you face prosecution. The OP is based in the U.K. and has asked about advice relating to regulations in the UK and you’ve basically crashed this thread to tell us that the World is flat, Lizard people are in charge but not to worry you have a hideout where we’ll all be safe.

Have a nice day and don’t worry about Brit nail techs with our crazy science nonsense, stupid safety concerns and money wasting insurance habits. You can’t save us all.

 

[tuna816]

Tuna this is very tiring to read. You’re just arguing for the sake of it and making yourself look ridiculous. We’re all laughing at you.

You see you are making claims that are based on what you know and believe, based on your experience, training and what you have read, but it’s very obvious that you haven’t been educated to the appropriate standard for your opinion to be helpful.

Unless you are a medial doctor you must not make statements about whether a chemical poses a risk to a child’s health. In the U.K. this is an offence and you face prosecution. The OP is based in the U.K. and has asked about advice relating to regulations in the UK and you’ve basically crashed this thread to tell us that the World is flat, Lizard people are in charge but not to worry you have a hideout where we’ll all be safe.

Have a nice day and don’t worry about Brit nail techs with our crazy science nonsense, stupid safety concerns and money wasting insurance habits. You can’t save us all.

Honestly I'm actually refraining from posting a key piece of evidence that will end all of this. But I choose not to post it. I just want to see how some people handle debate and critique.

As I said before, this is what I do. I research this stuff.

Face prosecution? There is no law in the UK that says you can't give a child acrylics or gel polish. This is an insurance issue. Btw, I also happen to research a lot in law.

Also Kyra, you've seen my other post. You know I don't post junk for fun. This is truly a passion of mines when I was doing nails.

 

[Trinity]

Honestly I'm actually refraining from posting a key piece of evidence that will end all of this. But I choose not to post it. I just want to see how some people handle debate and critique.

As I said before, this is what I do. I research this stuff.

for the love of all things holy do it!

I'm so sick of your constant boasting that you are something special in research but NEVER once have you provided any evidence by way of links to any research you claim you have done. We're just supposed to believe your claim about how great you are at something. Well I could claim repeatedly I'm a supermodel, unless I provide evidence of my portfolio I sound like a delusional fool, sadly you are doing the same thing.

If you have to repeatedly tell people how clever you are, you're probably not.

I just want to see how some people handle debate and critique.

No you don't, you are just trying to justify making a fool of yourself, by trying to pretend it was for our benefit. We're not fooled for one moment.

 

[AcidPerm]

You can’t seriously call yourself a Researcher unless you’ve published papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. Looking things up on Google isn’t research, it’s just reading what others have written and have had posted online.

 

[Kyralouise]

Also Kyra, you've seen my other post. You know I don't post junk for fun. This is truly a passion of mines when I was doing nails.

What's this got to do with me??

 

[Trinity]

What's this got to do with me??

Because you 'liked' his post, surely that means you support everything he says

https://www.salongeek.com/threads/uv-led-lamps.336890/

 

[Kyralouise]

Because you 'liked' his post, surely that means you support everything he says

https://www.salongeek.com/threads/uv-led-lamps.336890/

ooo silly me!

 

[Sam@mps]

We can take advice and follow procedures and practices but we aren't medical professionals nor should we be giving out medical advice u less qualified to do so. That is exactly what we're taught in training in NVQ Beauty Therapy.

As a mother of a 12 year daughter and a fully qualified beautician, I can say my daughter has been and had acrylics done (not without myself researching the salon first, as I don't so nail extensions myself, only gel), it is an extremely popular thing to have done amongst that age group and upwards so I can see why it was asked, I can imagine demand will only increase.

 

[tuna816]

I am more than willing to have a respectful and objective discussion and debate on this subject. But as it is, this isn't a fair debate. I just want mods to be mediators and stop deleting post.

Oh and haircuts, a researcher - Careful study of a given subject, field, or problem, undertaken to discover facts or principles. No where does it say anything about published papers.

Some of you guys need to forget my past and move on. I'm not here to put people down or be holier than thou. I've changed. Have you?

 

[NancySyd]

Let me address each of your points individually:
1. "I've said it before, I am a top tier researcher." No you are not, certainly not in the context of science. I find this infuriating because I have so much respect for the many researchers I do know and I know how hard they work. I may not be a top tier researcher, but as a university dean, I've spent enough time working with them to know what constitutes a researcher. A researcher is some who creates new knowledge, not someone who just reads other peoples' work. And researchers always cite their sources, even in casual conversation. They do so for three reasons - to lend credibility to their statements, to give credit to those doing the work, and to give readers/listeners the opportunity to delve deeper into the topic by retracing the steps. You have done absolutely none of this; you didn't even cite where you got that definition of research! Here's better definition from Hampshire College "Research is a process of systematic inquiry that entails collection of data; documentation of critical information; and analysis and interpretation of that data/information, in accordance with suitable methodologies set by specific professional fields and academic disciplines." You have not done this; you consistently violate the ethics of research. You'll notice that Google is not mentioned.You are not a researcher, let alone top tier.

2. "But lets step back to the original point. Yes, it's not advisable to give a young child acrylics, but you're not hurting them from a standpoint of their immune being weaker. If that were true, stop using shampoos, eating allergic foods, touching nickel, etc etc. All of those things can cause allergies."
You're making my point. There are lots of things that we do because children have less developed immune systems - from not giving them honey, to using baby shampoo, to giving them vaccinations early and throughout life, keeping lead away from them, to not giving them certain medicines and herbs, not exposing them to unnecessary chemicals, etc. Not using nail enhancements is consistent with that understanding.

3. "You can link articles all you want, but those articles are weak and not convincing." You are correct, not all links are equally valuable. But you haven't posted a single reference written or oral - not a single one!! No matter what you may think of my links, they certainly are better than the ones you have never posted! If it is so easy, and if you are truly a researcher, it is your obligation to do this. That is how science is done, it is how debate is done, heck, it's how common sense and courtesy is done. As I understand it, the mod deleted your post because it contained dangerously inaccurate information that was not supported in any way. You weren't deleted because of a disagreement; you were deleted because of your disrespectful, complete, and utter failure to abide by the basic tenets and ethics of even casual debate.

Again, I have lost hope of you ever changing your ways or admitting your numerous failings. But your postings should not go unanswered for the sake of the profession.

 

[Sam@mps]

https://online.professionalbeautydirect.co.uk/blog/age-restrictions
I guess it all comes down to insurance and their age restrictions, professional beauty say 14, but also whether the judgement is made if that the client is suitable for the treatment (and can sit still so the products don't go on their skin) that's at any age, we all make those judgements on a daily basis for every treatment anyway.

Obviously the difference is my daughter has me to look after them at home and take them off safely, but some adults who get them on don't even do that, we all know one picker.

 

[AcidPerm]

I’m closing this thread here.

Techs based in the UK and Europe are not insured to offer Nail enhancements to children under 14 regardless of parents wishes. If you do so, you risk being sued at a later date if the parent changes their mind. Why would you risk that when you can apply ordinary nail polish without fear of reprisals?