Editorial portrait. Not a photograph of HPA treatment or a before-and-after comparison.
01 / THE DOCUMENTED EVENTS
What is on the public record.
Images of Choi Jin-sil's injured face were published after she experienced domestic violence. The advertiser sued over contractual image obligations. In 2009, the Supreme Court found liability in relation to publication and remitted the case; some damages were awarded in 2010. This case concerns a survivor of violence, not a voluntary cosmetic change.
An organisation can compound serious harm if it views injuries and the treatment of the person affected solely through its advertising interests.
03 / WHERE HPA COULD HELP
Where thoughtful care could make a contribution.
Under HPA's guiding principles, safety and appropriate acute care would come first. Later support could include monitoring scars, an additional specialist assessment and confidential handovers. Violence prevention, legal protection for survivors and crisis communications require the appropriate specialist services. A brand engagement does not authorise HPA to conceal injuries or control the person affected.
These publicly documented cases illustrate different risks: contract disputes, conflicting advertising claims, interrupted care and later negative associations with a brand. The people and companies are editorial case studies; their inclusion does not imply that HPA has cared for them. Each HPA perspective is a hypothetical application of our proposed services, not evidence that HPA could have prevented the events described.
These editorial portraits identify the people discussed. They may have been taken at a different time from the events in the case study. We draw no clinical findings or conclusions about treatment needs from their appearance.
