lemonde.fr
Legal Dispute: Bikini Wax and Subsequent Psoriasis
Following a July 2017 bikini wax at Annecy Body, Mme. X developed burns and later, psoriasis. A legal dispute ensued regarding the causal link between the waxing and the subsequent medical issues, with conflicting expert opinions.
- What is the key legal question in determining the responsibility of Annecy Body for Mme. X's psoriasis?
- In July 2017, Mme. X experienced burns during a bikini wax at Annecy Body, leading to subsequent medical treatments and a psoriasis diagnosis. The institute and its insurer contested the causal link between the waxing and the psoriasis.
- What evidence supports and refutes a causal link between the waxing and the development of Mme. X's psoriasis?
- While an expert found it difficult to definitively link the waxing to the psoriasis, the expert noted the psoriasis appeared concurrently after the waxing and persisted in the same area, suggesting a direct relationship. The burns were also located where the waxing occurred.
- What are the broader implications of this case for the legal framework surrounding liability in aesthetic treatments?
- The case highlights the challenges in proving causality in medical malpractice cases involving aesthetic treatments. The long delay between the waxing and diagnosis complicated the determination of a direct causal link, emphasizing the need for clear and immediate medical attention following such incidents.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the client's claim and the evidence supporting it, while downplaying the defense's arguments. The headline implicitly suggests a causal link by focusing on the client's pursuit of compensation. The inclusion of the husband's statement about marital problems further biases the narrative towards the client's perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses relatively neutral language, although phrases like "brûlée" (burned) and descriptions of the lesions are somewhat evocative. However, this emotional impact is relatively mild compared to the framing and omission biases present.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the legal dispute and expert opinions, potentially omitting other contributing factors to the client's psoriasis. While the timeline is detailed, it doesn't explore potential underlying health conditions or other possible triggers for psoriasis. The impact of stress or other lifestyle factors on psoriasis development is not addressed.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by focusing primarily on whether the waxing caused the psoriasis, neglecting the possibility of multiple contributing factors. The expert's conclusion that it is difficult to definitively link the two events is downplayed in favor of emphasizing the temporal relationship.
Gender Bias
The article uses gender-neutral language, but the focus on the client's inability to have sexual relations could be interpreted as exploiting a sensitive personal detail. The inclusion of her husband's testimony might amplify this effect, although it's presented as evidence related to damages rather than intrinsic to the case.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article describes a case where a woman suffered burns and subsequently developed psoriasis after a waxing treatment. This highlights failures in providing safe beauty services, leading to physical and emotional harm, thus negatively impacting the SDG target of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages.