Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
No Treatment for pregnant woman at Cherie
I've just been turned away from Cherie on Green Lanes for a leg wax because they don't wax pregnant women.
There is absolutely no health and safety reason for this, and when challenged the woman in charge simply said it was her decision.
I walked away feeling a bit humiliated but thought I'd let others know so they can avoid the same experience.
Tags for Forum Posts: Cherie's
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Malc B on
-
Why not? The "practice" is to discriminate against pregnant women, and despite what Dr Google says, it doesn't seem there is any objective basis for doing so.
-
Permalink Reply by Burgoyne Bec on
-
http://www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201408/991536-behold.jpg
Honestly guys, this all boils down to men (and some women) purporting to know what's best for women. Im not typical of the "fairer sex" and don't want assumptions made by people who aren't medical professionals about what's best or not for me. Sure, skin can be more sensitive during pregnancy, but it can be for a number of people who aren't pregnant too. I know lots of mums who have waxed with no negative effects and I wanted to join that cohort at a local salon. Looks like I will just have to head to a more liberal area of London.
-
Permalink Reply by Abi on
-
Agreed, it's a really dangerous tendency and in its wider form causes women a lot of unnecessarily guilt, stress and inconvenience.
I'm firmly of the opinion that most things pregnant women are supposed to avoid are hokum, and are simply emblematic of the status of women in our society.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
MEN ???
You said " when challenged the woman in charge simply said.... "
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I have no strong view on this at all, but would be interested to know the truth of the matter. In the link Tara posted above, the following is written:
Skin changes occur in about 90 % pregnant women in one form or the other. The various skin changes maybe either physiological (hormonal), changes in pre-existing skin diseases or development of new pregnancy-specific dermatoses. All of these dermatoses can be attributed to the profound hormonal, vascular, metabolic, and immunological changes occurring during pregnancy.
Classification
Pregnancy-specific dermatoses have now been classified into dermatoses which are definitively associated and dermatoses with uncertain association with pregnancy. Though most of these skin dermatoses are benign and resolve in postpartum period, a few can risk fetal life and require antenatal surveillance. Most of the dermatoses of pregnancy can be treated conservatively but a few require intervention in the form of termination of pregnancy.
Conclusion
Careful history taking and examination will help us to identify each condition clinically and appropriate management can be instituted for the well-being of the mother and the fetus.
I have completely insufficient knowledge to draw conclusions from that, but I'm wondering if it suggests that there is indeed a cause for concern. Anyone with any real medical knowledge out there?
-
-
I don't think you can draw any conclusions about skin waxing from a general article about skin changes in pregnancy. Skin changes also occur during puberty, yet do we prevent teens from waxing? How about during the menopause? The fact that the NHS has no specific guidance on this speaks volumes to me.
As for dermatoses which may affect the unborn child, if any mum had one of these she would probably be on medication and have guidance from consultants about chemicals etc to avoid.
And BTW I have now had a wax, no negative effects whatsoever.
To this I would also add - if a teenager or older woman with bad skin came in for a wax would the beautician interview them or point blank refuse to accept them as a new client? This was my real issue with the treatment at Cherie. They saw my bump and said no, giving no reason. In my mind that is discrimination.
-
-
You might argue with the basis of their decision, but I think I can understand their caution. I suppose you could argue a case for discrimination if their decision was without reasonable basis. However, whilst the basis of their decision may be up to interpretation, from what's be written here, there seems to be enough of a basis for there to be reasonable doubt at the very least. So whilst you might disagree with their policy, personally I think its a but tough to accuse them of discrimination.
As I understand it, they told you that they didn't want to treat you for fear of doing you harm. That sounds reasonable. If a restaurant told you they wouldn't serve you simply because you're pregnant and had no reason for it, that would be discriminatory. In this case there was a reason underpinning the decision.
I'm just offering an alternative view. Having done so, I'll duck out and forever more hold my peace on the matter.
-
-
They didn't tell me that Hugh. I was told that they didn't treat pregnant women. I asked why and was told it was the beauticians choice. I didn't get told anything about risks or skin conditions. I was just turned away.
-
-
It sounds like they could have handled it better then. Still a very decent explanation and a gracious apology, I thought.
-
-
-
The short answer is that even if there is, it doesn't matter because the service provider is obliged to make "reasonable adjustments" (i.e. explain any risks, use less harsh products etc; but NOT refusing treatment outright).
But the longer answer based on everything posted here is that there isn't any risk, other than that the technique may be more painful than usual - a matter which falls squarely within the category of the woman's choice.
Here is what a dermatologist has to say:
http://www.fitpregnancy.com/gear/maternity-fashion/safe-hair-remova...
-
-
Thanks. So if that info is right and what Bec asked for was a wax it seems like the beautician was working on the basis of poor information, though she was probably acting out of the best motives.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
