A Comment on Mercantilism in the Trichological Sciences

Abstract

ABSTRACT A quasi-scientific interest in hair loss and hair care originated in a London barbershop, and became known as trichology, with the Institute of Trichologists being founded. Other corporations successively followed, offering paid courses by home-study for training of initiates who desire more knowledge about hair. Trichologists are not medically qualified but are taught the practice of care and treatment of the hair and scalp in health and disease within their restricted but specialized role. With the advent of opportunities in the social media, and of epiluminiscence microscopy, a procedure practiced by the guild of trichologists long before its nominal introduction as trichoscopy into dermatologic practice, representatives of the medical profession are following the example of the trichologists in offering online courses, though with a better understanding of clinical-pathological correlations based on their academic learning. Despite the enthusiasm emerging with its establishment as a dermatologic tool in the diagnosis of hair and scalp disorders, caution is warranted not to elevate trichoscopy to something like a fetish status. As a diagnostic procedure, trichoscopy is to be understood as representing an integral part of a comprehensive dermatological examination. The Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history, allegedly still held sacred by physicians: to treat the ill to the best of one’s ability, to preserve a patient’s privacy, and to teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation without fee. And yet, as in no other field of medicine, paid online courses on trichoscopy are flourishing and with a primary commercial aim. However, dermato-trichology, or trichiatry require the same due diligence as any other medical discipline, with respect to its practice and its ethics. Medical artistry is neither reducible to a single hand-held diagnostic technique nor is it negotiable.