the Free Hypnosis Social Network
REGULATION OF HYPNOTHERAPY
Here is a current newsletter from the American Psychological Association. If you are one favoring regulation, here is how you will be put out of business.
HYPNOSIS: PROFESSIONALISM OR QUACKERY?
David J DePiano, J.D. and Frank DePiano, Ph.D.*
We continue to be intrigued by the field of hypnosis. Since the first time I (DJD) was hypnotized as a 12-year-old, felt my arm levitate without “me doing anything,” and was sure that my father (FDP) was doing some kind of trick to “get my arm to rise,” the field interested me. How could something like this happen? Despite this “hypnotic success,” as I got a bit older I also saw that many unsubstantiated claims were made about hypnosis. This caused me to become disillusioned. Nevertheless, my interest in the field has remained and while I would regard myself as skeptical about many of the broad claims made about hypnosis, the practice continues to draw my interest. More recently, as my interest and involvement in the law has grown, I have become curious as to how my profession of law currently views hypnosis.
A recent perusal of South Florida newspapers revealed no fewer than five advertisements across a single week that purported to train one how to become a hypnotist in as short as a few days. Claims are made to the effect that trainees will be able to treat eating disorders, anxiety, hypertension and help in smoking cessation. Upon completion of the course, the new practitioner will be able to both earn significant income while at the same time helping others. All this, it is promised, for just an investment of a few hours (and of course a few thousand dollars). Even larger numbers of ads from practitioners that claim to provide hypnosis treatment for smoking, over eating, habit reduction, etc. can be seen.
Indeed, a scanning of the internet reveals even more outstanding, tantalizing, and unrealistic claims. For example one ad (http://www.secretsofhypnosis.net/Index1.html, 09) states that you can learn to “easily hypnotize anyone in seconds . . . and that they will never even notice you hypnotized them.” The same ad goes on to state that you will learn “almost ‘criminal’ techniques to make people do what you want.”
On the other hand, some of the most rigorous studies in health and behavioral sciences come from the hypnosis literature. Standards established by prominent hypnosis journals such as the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis and others are of the highest level of scientific method. For example, standards in the hypnosis literature often call for controls for variables such as experimenter bias, hold back effect and more, depending on the goal of the study. Far fewer studies in general psychology consistently call for the same rigorous demands. A quick look at the website of the International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis (IJC&EH) Instruction for Authors (http://www.ijceh.com/content/view/15/50/, 09) illustrates the field’s strong commitment to scientific rigor:
Aims and Scope: The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis publishes only original research and clinical papers dealing with hypnosis and psychology, psychiatry, the medical and mental specialties, and allied areas of science. Submissions include clinical and experimental studies, discussions of theory, significant historical and cultural material. Unsolicited commentaries on articles appearing in the journal are not accepted. It is the purpose of this journal to present in an integrated manner the best research in scientific hypnosis and to encourage support continued through inquiry.
In a similar fashion, professional qualifications as established by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH) (http://asch.net/certification.htm, 09) Division 30, and other hypnosis-professional groups are among the most stringent. Most of our colleagues in Division 30 will agree that the certification requirements of ASCH, for example, while not guaranteeing a competent practitioner, certainly strive to ensure good training and appropriate credentials for all those seeking its certification. Certification hopes to ensure several things that fellow professionals, consumers, third party payers, managed care programs, hospitals and clinics are all interested in knowing about individuals who incorporate hypnosis in their practices. To that end, ASCH subscribes to the following demanding requirements before conferring a level of certification on any applicant. Certification indicates that the practitioner:
- Has undergone advanced training in his/her profession to obtain a legitimate advanced degree from an accredited institution of higher education;
- Is licensed or certified to practice in his or her state/province;
- Has had his or her education and training in clinical hypnosis that has met the minimum requirements established by a Standards of Training Committee of qualified peers;
- Has been determined to have received at least the minimum educational training that ASCH, the largest such interdisciplinary organization in North America, considers as necessary for utilizing hypnosis.
There are two (2) levels of Certification. The entry level is simply called "Certification." Another more advanced level, called "Approved Consultant," recognizes individuals who have obtained advanced training in clinical hypnosis and who have extensive experience in utilizing hypnosis within their professional practices. Approved Consultants are qualified to provide individualized training and consultation for those seeking Certification.
As the authors discussed—and sometimes debated—the large disparity in image within the field of hypnosis, we thought it would be interesting to survey selected state statutes to see how these various state legislatures addressed and viewed the profession of hypnosis. For the purpose of this survey we selected the top ten (10) most populated states, which comprised about 53% of the nation’s total population. Surprisingly, as Table I reveals, the overwhelming majority of these states do not dedicate a section of their laws to hypnosis.
TABLE I – HYPNOSIS REFLECTED IN STATE LAW
State CA TX NY FL IL PA OH MI GA NC
Regulated
X
X
Mentioned but not regulated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Further, only two of the states surveyed seek to regulate the use and practice of hypnosis. Both Florida and Texas regulate hypnosis by limiting its use and performance to appropriately trained and credentialed individuals. The Texas Code regulates the use and performance of “Investigative Hypnosis” but does not appear to make any reference to other uses of hypnosis. Even between these two states, however, only Florida seeks to regulate the use of any hypnosis. That is, Florida’s statutes warn that “[it] shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of hypnosis for therapeutic purposes unless such person is a practitioner of one of the healing arts, as herein defined, or acts under the supervision, direction, prescription, and responsibility of such a person” (Fla. Stat. § 485.004, 2009 (emphasis added)). Meanwhile, Texas only seeks to limit hypnosis in one specific context. The state’s law requires that “[a] peace officer may not use a hypnotic interview technique unless the officer: (1) completes a training course approved by the commission; and (2) passes an examination administered by the commission that is designed to test the officer's knowledge of investigative hypnosis” (Tex. Code Ann. § 1701.403(b), 2009 (emphasis added)).
Unlike Florida, however, Texas does not appear to regulate the use of hypnosis in any other context. A violation of either state’s hypnosis law will constitute a criminal act. In Texas, such an act constitutes a misdemeanor that carries up to a $1,000 fine. An unlicensed hypnotist in Florida can cost a violator up to $500 and may lead to sixty days in jail!
The other eight states surveyed do not have statutes that focus solely on hypnosis. Some, however, do have laws that discuss hypnosis in one form or another. For example, a cosmetologist in Ohio, who completes some requisite postgraduate training, may offer “hypnosis for relaxation” at his/her salon (Ohio Admin. Code § 4713-8-03(H) , 2009). Also, an Attorney General’s opinion in Michigan specifically noted that, so long as it was not used for the purpose of diagnosis, hypnosis was generally an unregulated act (Op.Atty.Gen.1976, No. 4877, p. 344). Notably, neither California nor New York, two states that traditionally take the lead for liberal and extensive regulation, has statutes directly limiting the use and performance of hypnosis. The lack of statutory attention paid to hypnosis in these states may reflect a number of factors. First, the lack of a clear definition of hypnosis may discourage legislatures from attempting to regulate it. The difficulty in enforcing poorly defined activities frequently discourages legislative action. Next, a consistent lobbying effort, one that reflects a common voice in lobbying state legislatures, would increase the likelihood of enactment of effective legislation. Most of all, a strong commitment to holding the field of hypnosis to the highest professional and scientific standards will increase the field’s credibility and result in state legislatures taking the need for legislative development in hypnosis more seriously.
Where Next?
A. In The Field
It is clear that both the popularity and credibility of the field of hypnosis ebbs and flows in a cyclical manner. We have survived the discrediting eras of Mesmer and the sexualized scandals related to hypnosis of the 1960s and ‘70s.
In my (FDP) Presidential address of 2005 (DePiano, 2005) and in the President’s message in the summer edition of the bulletin, 2005 (DePiano, 2005), however, I noted concerns related to the drop off in hypnosis-related dissertations. At the time, I expressed concerns about the relative lack of hypnosis representation in areas of educational program accreditation. Are these signs of a decline in our field? I do not know that we can say for certain, but I do know that we need even greater levels of the type of legislative and professional advocacy exemplified by Melvin Gravitz.
To that end, it is important that those in the field engage in an internal educational campaign. We need to draw the young professionals, those still in their graduate training, to the field. These individuals need to understand the scientific nature of inquiry in the field of hypnosis. In educational circles, we must ensure that students are exposed to training in not only the techniques and applications of hypnosis but also in the ethical and professional scientific work we do. I have consistently urged our Division members to become active in the American Psychological Association (APA) program accreditation process; we must demand that our continuing educational efforts reflect the best science the field has to offer and to avoid supporting those anecdotal and sensationally-filled presentations. We must lobby our training programs to offer more training in hypnosis from those well trained and experienced in the field. Above all, we, those of us interested in the preservation and development of our field, must hold to the highest of standards both in our private work and in our public positions.
B. In The Law
Both authors remember how much interest was generated from the intriguing phenomena of hypnosis. While too many exaggerated claims remain, numerous interesting results have been identified and acknowledged. The current group of highly competent researchers has found many interesting results related to hypnosis in pain management, smoking cessation, physiological correlates to hypnosis, hypnotic outcomes in PTSD and as an augmenting treatment with cancer and other life- threatening illnesses. Still, as a result of the unsubstantiated claims made by so-called “hypnotists,” many questions remain and an aura of skepticism lingers. The disparity among those laws regulating the practice reflects both society’s acknowledgement of these successes and, unfortunately, its ambivalence in accepting hypnosis as a legitimate part of professionalism.
Americans today, more than ever, look to the law as a source for legitimacy. Indeed, in this context, professions must be regulated to be taken seriously. In that regard, for hypnosis to be accepted as a scientifically viable practice, it is important that it gain some recognition in both the judicial and legislative branch of the law. Unfortunately, the courts must wait for problems to arise so that they can act or, more appropriately, react. Those of us interested in the development of our field, however, can take a much more active role in the advocacy for hypnosis by contacting local state legislators. The National Conference of State Legislatures, whose website is http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm, provides a list of links to the home pages of all 50 states’ legislatures. There is no doubt that making sure the next generation of researchers and practitioners develop an understanding and a respect for our field and that these individuals “carry the banner” for hypnosis into the coming years is essential. Just as vital to the field’s future, however, is formal legal acknowledgement of the practice.
References
Cosmetology Standards, Ohio Admin. Code § 4713-8-03(H) (2009)
DePiano, F. (2005). President’s message. Psychological Hypnosis, 14 (2), 1-
2.
DePiano, F. (2005, August). Division 30 Presidential Address. Presented at
the 113th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C.
http://asch.net/certification.html
http://www.secretsofhypnosis.net/Index1.html
http://www.ijceh.com/content/view/15/50/
http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm
Hypnosis Law, Fla. Stat. § 485.004 (2009)
OAG, 1975-1976. (March 23, 1976). No. 4877, p. 344
Occupations Related to Law Enforcement and Security, Tex. Code Ann. §
1701.403(b) (2009)
Ohio Admin. Code § 4713-8-03(H) (2009)
*David J DePiano is a practicing attorney and Associate working in the Offices of Sedgwick, Deter, Moran & Arnold, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
*Frank DePiano is University Provost and Vice President Academic Affairs, Nova Southeastern University
HYPNOSIS: PROFESSIONALISM OR QUACKERY?
David J DePiano, J.D. and Frank DePiano, Ph.D.*
We continue to be intrigued by the field of hypnosis. Since the first time I (DJD) was hypnotized as a 12-year-old, felt my arm levitate without “me doing anything,” and was sure that my father (FDP) was doing some kind of trick to “get my arm to rise,” the field interested me. How could something like this happen? Despite this “hypnotic success,” as I got a bit older I also saw that many unsubstantiated claims were made about hypnosis. This caused me to become disillusioned. Nevertheless, my interest in the field has remained and while I would regard myself as skeptical about many of the broad claims made about hypnosis, the practice continues to draw my interest. More recently, as my interest and involvement in the law has grown, I have become curious as to how my profession of law currently views hypnosis.
A recent perusal of South Florida newspapers revealed no fewer than five advertisements across a single week that purported to train one how to become a hypnotist in as short as a few days. Claims are made to the effect that trainees will be able to treat eating disorders, anxiety, hypertension and help in smoking cessation. Upon completion of the course, the new practitioner will be able to both earn significant income while at the same time helping others. All this, it is promised, for just an investment of a few hours (and of course a few thousand dollars). Even larger numbers of ads from practitioners that claim to provide hypnosis treatment for smoking, over eating, habit reduction, etc. can be seen.
Indeed, a scanning of the internet reveals even more outstanding, tantalizing, and unrealistic claims. For example one ad (http://www.secretsofhypnosis.net/Index1.html, 09) states that you can learn to “easily hypnotize anyone in seconds . . . and that they will never even notice you hypnotized them.” The same ad goes on to state that you will learn “almost ‘criminal’ techniques to make people do what you want.”
On the other hand, some of the most rigorous studies in health and behavioral sciences come from the hypnosis literature. Standards established by prominent hypnosis journals such as the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis and others are of the highest level of scientific method. For example, standards in the hypnosis literature often call for controls for variables such as experimenter bias, hold back effect and more, depending on the goal of the study. Far fewer studies in general psychology consistently call for the same rigorous demands. A quick look at the website of the International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis (IJC&EH) Instruction for Authors (http://www.ijceh.com/content/view/15/50/, 09) illustrates the field’s strong commitment to scientific rigor:
Aims and Scope: The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis publishes only original research and clinical papers dealing with hypnosis and psychology, psychiatry, the medical and mental specialties, and allied areas of science. Submissions include clinical and experimental studies, discussions of theory, significant historical and cultural material. Unsolicited commentaries on articles appearing in the journal are not accepted. It is the purpose of this journal to present in an integrated manner the best research in scientific hypnosis and to encourage support continued through inquiry.
In a similar fashion, professional qualifications as established by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH) (http://asch.net/certification.htm, 09) Division 30, and other hypnosis-professional groups are among the most stringent. Most of our colleagues in Division 30 will agree that the certification requirements of ASCH, for example, while not guaranteeing a competent practitioner, certainly strive to ensure good training and appropriate credentials for all those seeking its certification. Certification hopes to ensure several things that fellow professionals, consumers, third party payers, managed care programs, hospitals and clinics are all interested in knowing about individuals who incorporate hypnosis in their practices. To that end, ASCH subscribes to the following demanding requirements before conferring a level of certification on any applicant. Certification indicates that the practitioner:
- Has undergone advanced training in his/her profession to obtain a legitimate advanced degree from an accredited institution of higher education;
- Is licensed or certified to practice in his or her state/province;
- Has had his or her education and training in clinical hypnosis that has met the minimum requirements established by a Standards of Training Committee of qualified peers;
- Has been determined to have received at least the minimum educational training that ASCH, the largest such interdisciplinary organization in North America, considers as necessary for utilizing hypnosis.
There are two (2) levels of Certification. The entry level is simply called "Certification." Another more advanced level, called "Approved Consultant," recognizes individuals who have obtained advanced training in clinical hypnosis and who have extensive experience in utilizing hypnosis within their professional practices. Approved Consultants are qualified to provide individualized training and consultation for those seeking Certification.
As the authors discussed—and sometimes debated—the large disparity in image within the field of hypnosis, we thought it would be interesting to survey selected state statutes to see how these various state legislatures addressed and viewed the profession of hypnosis. For the purpose of this survey we selected the top ten (10) most populated states, which comprised about 53% of the nation’s total population. Surprisingly, as Table I reveals, the overwhelming majority of these states do not dedicate a section of their laws to hypnosis.
TABLE I – HYPNOSIS REFLECTED IN STATE LAW
State CA TX NY FL IL PA OH MI GA NC
Regulated
X
X
Mentioned but not regulated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Further, only two of the states surveyed seek to regulate the use and practice of hypnosis. Both Florida and Texas regulate hypnosis by limiting its use and performance to appropriately trained and credentialed individuals. The Texas Code regulates the use and performance of “Investigative Hypnosis” but does not appear to make any reference to other uses of hypnosis. Even between these two states, however, only Florida seeks to regulate the use of any hypnosis. That is, Florida’s statutes warn that “[it] shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of hypnosis for therapeutic purposes unless such person is a practitioner of one of the healing arts, as herein defined, or acts under the supervision, direction, prescription, and responsibility of such a person” (Fla. Stat. § 485.004, 2009 (emphasis added)). Meanwhile, Texas only seeks to limit hypnosis in one specific context. The state’s law requires that “[a] peace officer may not use a hypnotic interview technique unless the officer: (1) completes a training course approved by the commission; and (2) passes an examination administered by the commission that is designed to test the officer's knowledge of investigative hypnosis” (Tex. Code Ann. § 1701.403(b), 2009 (emphasis added)).
Unlike Florida, however, Texas does not appear to regulate the use of hypnosis in any other context. A violation of either state’s hypnosis law will constitute a criminal act. In Texas, such an act constitutes a misdemeanor that carries up to a $1,000 fine. An unlicensed hypnotist in Florida can cost a violator up to $500 and may lead to sixty days in jail!
The other eight states surveyed do not have statutes that focus solely on hypnosis. Some, however, do have laws that discuss hypnosis in one form or another. For example, a cosmetologist in Ohio, who completes some requisite postgraduate training, may offer “hypnosis for relaxation” at his/her salon (Ohio Admin. Code § 4713-8-03(H) , 2009). Also, an Attorney General’s opinion in Michigan specifically noted that, so long as it was not used for the purpose of diagnosis, hypnosis was generally an unregulated act (Op.Atty.Gen.1976, No. 4877, p. 344). Notably, neither California nor New York, two states that traditionally take the lead for liberal and extensive regulation, has statutes directly limiting the use and performance of hypnosis. The lack of statutory attention paid to hypnosis in these states may reflect a number of factors. First, the lack of a clear definition of hypnosis may discourage legislatures from attempting to regulate it. The difficulty in enforcing poorly defined activities frequently discourages legislative action. Next, a consistent lobbying effort, one that reflects a common voice in lobbying state legislatures, would increase the likelihood of enactment of effective legislation. Most of all, a strong commitment to holding the field of hypnosis to the highest professional and scientific standards will increase the field’s credibility and result in state legislatures taking the need for legislative development in hypnosis more seriously.
Where Next?
A. In The Field
It is clear that both the popularity and credibility of the field of hypnosis ebbs and flows in a cyclical manner. We have survived the discrediting eras of Mesmer and the sexualized scandals related to hypnosis of the 1960s and ‘70s.
In my (FDP) Presidential address of 2005 (DePiano, 2005) and in the President’s message in the summer edition of the bulletin, 2005 (DePiano, 2005), however, I noted concerns related to the drop off in hypnosis-related dissertations. At the time, I expressed concerns about the relative lack of hypnosis representation in areas of educational program accreditation. Are these signs of a decline in our field? I do not know that we can say for certain, but I do know that we need even greater levels of the type of legislative and professional advocacy exemplified by Melvin Gravitz.
To that end, it is important that those in the field engage in an internal educational campaign. We need to draw the young professionals, those still in their graduate training, to the field. These individuals need to understand the scientific nature of inquiry in the field of hypnosis. In educational circles, we must ensure that students are exposed to training in not only the techniques and applications of hypnosis but also in the ethical and professional scientific work we do. I have consistently urged our Division members to become active in the American Psychological Association (APA) program accreditation process; we must demand that our continuing educational efforts reflect the best science the field has to offer and to avoid supporting those anecdotal and sensationally-filled presentations. We must lobby our training programs to offer more training in hypnosis from those well trained and experienced in the field. Above all, we, those of us interested in the preservation and development of our field, must hold to the highest of standards both in our private work and in our public positions.
B. In The Law
Both authors remember how much interest was generated from the intriguing phenomena of hypnosis. While too many exaggerated claims remain, numerous interesting results have been identified and acknowledged. The current group of highly competent researchers has found many interesting results related to hypnosis in pain management, smoking cessation, physiological correlates to hypnosis, hypnotic outcomes in PTSD and as an augmenting treatment with cancer and other life- threatening illnesses. Still, as a result of the unsubstantiated claims made by so-called “hypnotists,” many questions remain and an aura of skepticism lingers. The disparity among those laws regulating the practice reflects both society’s acknowledgement of these successes and, unfortunately, its ambivalence in accepting hypnosis as a legitimate part of professionalism.
Americans today, more than ever, look to the law as a source for legitimacy. Indeed, in this context, professions must be regulated to be taken seriously. In that regard, for hypnosis to be accepted as a scientifically viable practice, it is important that it gain some recognition in both the judicial and legislative branch of the law. Unfortunately, the courts must wait for problems to arise so that they can act or, more appropriately, react. Those of us interested in the development of our field, however, can take a much more active role in the advocacy for hypnosis by contacting local state legislators. The National Conference of State Legislatures, whose website is http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm, provides a list of links to the home pages of all 50 states’ legislatures. There is no doubt that making sure the next generation of researchers and practitioners develop an understanding and a respect for our field and that these individuals “carry the banner” for hypnosis into the coming years is essential. Just as vital to the field’s future, however, is formal legal acknowledgement of the practice.
References
Cosmetology Standards, Ohio Admin. Code § 4713-8-03(H) (2009)
DePiano, F. (2005). President’s message. Psychological Hypnosis, 14 (2), 1-
2.
DePiano, F. (2005, August). Division 30 Presidential Address. Presented at
the 113th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C.
http://asch.net/certification.html
http://www.secretsofhypnosis.net/Index1.html
http://www.ijceh.com/content/view/15/50/
http://www.ncsl.org/public/leglinks.cfm
Hypnosis Law, Fla. Stat. § 485.004 (2009)
OAG, 1975-1976. (March 23, 1976). No. 4877, p. 344
Occupations Related to Law Enforcement and Security, Tex. Code Ann. §
1701.403(b) (2009)
Ohio Admin. Code § 4713-8-03(H) (2009)
*David J DePiano is a practicing attorney and Associate working in the Offices of Sedgwick, Deter, Moran & Arnold, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
*Frank DePiano is University Provost and Vice President Academic Affairs, Nova Southeastern University
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on -
Just to clarify and provide a complete list of hypnosis restrictions for the State of Texas:
Hypnosis and Hypnotherapy when performed by a licensed psychologist are subject to Board Rules. 22 Texas Administrative Code § 465.5
The practice of psychology includes hypnosis for health care purposes and hypnotherapy. Texas Occupations Code § 501.003
Certification is required for "investigative hypnosis proficiency." 37 Texas Administrative Code § 221.7
The use of specific methods, techniques, or modalities within the practice of professional counseling is limited to professional counselors appropriately trained and competent in the use of such methods. Authorized counseling methods and modalities may include, but are not restricted to: (13) Hypnotherapy which utilizes the principles of hypnosis and post-hypnotic suggestion in the treatment of mental and emotional disorders and addictions. 22 Texas Administrative Code § 681.31. (Which is why we don't use the term "Hypnotherapy" here.)
Hypnotherapy may be provided by a marriage and family therapist. 22 Texas Administrative Code § 801.42
Court held that a hypnotist was not exempt from obtaining a medical license when he advertised hypnosis as a means of curing certain mental and physical disorders. Masters v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 471 (1960)
John.
Meanwhile, Texas only seeks to limit hypnosis in one specific context. The state’s law requires that “[a] peace officer may not use a hypnotic interview technique unless the officer: (1) completes a training course approved by the commission; and (2) passes an examination administered by the commission that is designed to test the officer's knowledge of investigative hypnosis” (Tex. Code Ann. § 1701.403(b), 2009 (emphasis added)).
Unlike Florida, however, Texas does not appear to regulate the use of hypnosis in any other context.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Sandland on -
Gil-
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I have to confess, I agree with much of what they are saying, though not with their implied or defined solutions. Websites like http://www.secretsofhypnosis.net/Index1.html are absolute quackery, as I'm sure you would agree.
I'd also imagine you agree that scams and false claims like that tend to paint the modality in a bad light, at least to the uninformed. Any of those sites with "learn the secrets they don't want you to know about" or "this stuff should be illegal" etc. are more than embarrassing to those of us actually doing real work in a clinical setting. The schools offering a weekend of bad istructions full of back of the room sales pitches and upsells to future trainings are far too common, leaving graduates ill-equiped to either earn a great income or effectively help people with hypnosis.
Unfortunately, I think you would also agree that currently there isn't much a hypnosis governing body can do about these kinds of scams. Maybe you don't think organizations like the ACHE, NGH, IMDHA (etc) should be doing anything about it, I don't know.
You've been doing this longer than I have and have much more experience with the legislative history of hypnosis. I'd be very curious to hear what you think the solutions should be to some of the problems the authors brought up. How should we address the bad training programs, the scam websites, the phony PhDs, and all the other things that (understandably) concern the APA and many legitimate hypnotists?
My philosophy, and maybe it's naive, is that if we focus enough on solving our own problems, the APA will be less likely to ceate new ones for us. I have to confess, I don't have a mental picture of how to logistically do this without regulation of some sort, so I don't pretend to have the solutions.
I hope this doesn't turn into the same hypno-politics fight that people have gone back and forth on for years. I hope it doesn't devolve into fear mongering or name calling. I hope we can keep this discussion high mnded as well as open minded.
Looking forward to getting fresh perspectives on this one,
Scott Sandland
-
Permalink Reply by John R. Brochu on -
Everyone here remember that Gil Boyne raised the warning flag on this issue.
The rational argument that American Psychological association members could not handle the demand is a false sense of security.
This isn’t about the industry standards, scope of practice, professionalism or quackery, this is about money!
This article could become the bedrock on which future action taken against our industry is built. Authored by an attorney and a PhD that teaches Hypnosis in a University, this could be powerful tool in crafting a legal argument. The argument will be made to fence out lay hypnotist from the public access.
It’s time for the ACHE and NGH to start to speak with one voice on this issue.
Yours in Health,
John Brochu
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on -
Funny -- I was just reading how a "major-shrink" was striving to professionalize psychotherapy in the United States 100 years ago --
FYI-
8/29/09 NY Times -Op-Ed - Freud’s Adirondack Vacation
Snip:
"This person was James Jackson Putnam, a professor of neurology at Harvard and a leader of a growing movement to professionalize psychotherapy in the United States."
Unsnip
You can find the Op-Ed here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/opinion/29hoffman.html?_r=2&r...
Warmest regards,
Michael E.
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis Atkinson on -
Thanks for sharing Gil. Looks like the American Psychological Association is at it once again. Regulation is a slippery slope ... it often does not produce the results wanted.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on -
I thought Michael Ellner asked three relevant questions regarding this article recently:
1) Do you think that this article could inspire an organized effort to restrict our practices?
2) Do the authors make legitimate criticisms and/or have realistic concerns?
3) Is the desire to restrict our practices simply a matter of profesional dirtbags wanting to eliminate legitimate competition or do the authors really believe their mythologies?
Reprinted below are the thoughts I had at that time.
Michael,
In response to your three questions regarding the article:
I would have to say that the intent of the authors seems to be that of inspiring an organized effort to restrict the practice of “hypnosis” to a narrow and legislatively controlled process.
The authors make a big mistake by seemingly failing to distinguish between stage hypnosis, hypnosis as a method of personal change/growth/development and hypnosis used as an adjunct in the treatment of mental illness (claiming hypnosis “their field”). The authors are implying that hypnosis is a mental health profession. This is of course is not the case.
I do think the authors have some legitimate criticisms:
I agree that it is inappropriate for a hypnosis practitioner to claim to “treat” medically recognized disorders if they do not also hold a medical or mental health practitioner license.
As may be clear already I do not think they have realistic or justifiable concerns. To the best of my knowledge all members of ASCH are in fact licensed mental health practitioners (or on the way to being so). This would indicate they can practice their profession (mental health) and incorporate hypnosis and /or other “physiological correlates” ad hoc or via protocol already.
With the existing level of “prestige” in the mental health licensing process I do not comprehend the negative impact or lack of trust on the part of their patients to techniques used in “the office” that are also found outside of “the office”.
The authors indicate their desire and commitment to hypnosis. “Above all, we, those of us interested in the preservation and development of our field, must hold to the highest of standards both in our private work and in our public positions.” However to take him at his word here seems to point backward in time. I believe the “highest” standard in the mental health field is MD (Psychiatrist). I don’t think it necessary to limit the practice of mental health, or hypnosis to Psychiatrists and I don’t think the author is advocating this either.
My conclusion is that the author is firmly rooted in the old, disintegrating and un-collaborative, model of “profession” building. It’s understandable and unfortunate. Because with it the author is implicitly and possibly unconsciously putting the interests of the “profession” and practitioners ahead of the patients and or clients.
In a similar way as I have mentioned before
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/xn/detail/716892:Comment:321188 I feel it necessary to mention here that holding the interests of the profession/practitioners and patients/clients in equal balance is really the only win-win relationship and ethical position a practitioner can take.
Lastly the article may provide a stimulus for hypnosis practitioners to pause and consider the competitive aspect of the marketplace of ideas. There clearly is a need within the hypnosis practitioner body, a comprehensive effort to development a “Hypnosis Practitioner Body of Knowledge” (HPBOK) and universal curriculum that can be used as a quality standard for “the field of hypnosis” (without ownership).
To that end I invite all to inquire into their desire to make a positive contribution in that direction by exploring the Hypno-Practitioner Training Collaborative
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/group/hypnopractitionertrainingcollabo...
Namaste,
(with reverence to you)
(love, integrity, wisdom, and peace)
Michael
An additional thought can be found here.
-
Permalink Reply by Don on -
When I decided to accept Google's invitation to "monetize" my Hyperempiria blog by allowing advertisements between the frames of each entry, I recoiled horror at the come-ons that began to appear on my screen. "Turn People into Pets!" read one ad. "Hypnotize anonymously at a distance!" claimed another. It was only with great difficulty that I was able to remove the offending ads and return my blog to non-commercial status.
We often hear of the public misconceptions regarding hypnosis that we have to dispel before we are able to attract new clients. But where does the public get such misconceptions in the first place? To paraphrase the words of U.S. Naval captain Oliver Hazard Perry (as later reinterpreted by the comic strip Pogo), "We have met the enemy and they are us!"
Don
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on
-
I am one with the wisdom of "Pogo" and I think the desire to limit or eliminate our practices which is the focus of this discussion goes way beyond the self-inflicted damage that we do to ourselves.
Just my two cents...
Don Gibbons, Ph.D. said:When I decided to accept Google's invitation to "monetize" my Hyperempiria blog by allowing advertisements between the frames of each entry, I recoiled horror at the come-ons that began to appear on my screen. "Turn People into Pets!" read one ad. "Hypnotize anonymously at a distance!" claimed another. It was only with great difficulty that I was able to remove the offending ads and return my blog to non-commercial status.
We often hear of the public misconceptions regarding hypnosis that we have to dispel before we are able to attract new clients. But where does the public get such misconceptions in the first place? To paraphrase the words of U.S. Naval captain Oliver Hazard Perry (as later reinterpreted by the comic strip Pogo), "We have met the enemy and they are us!"
Don
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Sandland on
-
it seems as if there are two separate conversations here:
1. There are some bad hypnotists promoting scams, garbage, and misinformation for their own short term gain.
2. Hypnosis should or should not be regulated by the APA/State/Independent Hypnosis Agency in some form or another.
I see the APA trying to use the first point to build their case for the second point. In any field or profession there will be practitioners of value and quality and there will be hacks and quacks. Doctors, plumbers, pilots, and hypnotists all have this in common. Is it enough to simply say that though, or should it be somebody's responsibility to make it more difficult for the people in point 1 to do business? It's a big can of worms to open if you intend to do this, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth doing.
I don't think hypnosis, as it currently exists in America, has resources in place to respond to point 1. I'd like to see a group of smart people tackle each problem independently and see what they come up with.
Scott
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis Atkinson on
-
Another bit of reading I found interesting can be found on the internet ...
sharon tabarn + stage hypnosis ... should bring it up.
It is an article written I believe for some type of research paper, and deals with a young woman who died (allegedly) because of a suggestion given as a voluntary participant in a hypnosis stage show.
I attempted to post it once before, but the file is too large for this site, and after chopping it up to make it fit, someone assumed it was my writing or something ... anyway, let's just say I pulled it because I did not care for the comments directed at me .
Most of article is rather far fetched (my opinion), and may not directly deal with the regulating of hypnosis; but it does demonstrate the extremes that attorneys, scientists, religious groups, and people will go to prove their point ... scientific or othewise.
Maybe when scientists are over educated, they lose site of reality or common sense. Who knows.
-
Permalink Reply by Don on
-
Just as reading a book on surgery will not make you qualified to become a surgeon, so reading a book on hypnosis will not qualify you to operate a professional hypnosis practice. But this does not imply that we should ban books on surgery, any more than we should ban books on how to hypnotize someone.
Licensing is another matter. Most practitioners regard licensing as some sort of "Boojum," as in Lewis Carroll's poem entitled, "The Hunting of the Snark:"
But O! Beamish nephiew, beware of the day
If your Snark be a Boojum! for then,
You will softly and silently vanish away,
And never be met with again.
However, the licensing laws with which I am familiar all have a "grandfather clause" which protects existing practitioners -- in fact, they may be a distinct asset, because they restrict potential competition from all the young whippersnappers who may want to follow too closely in their footsteps.
Don
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis Atkinson on
-
I don't believe the article addresses the internet.
It seems to focus more on using the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis (ASCH) to set the professional standard; i.e, if you are not a licensed psychologist or marriage & family therapist, you don't qualify as a hypnotist.
I am not against some education requirement, such as standards for hypnosis schools that certify; however, I fail to see how having a college degree will make you a better hypnotist. We are not diagnosing disease and disorder; we are not treating mental illness.
Hypnotherapy is so effective that it has the potential to eat away at the psychologist's pocket book. We can accomplish in one or two sessions what potentially take psychologists weeks to discover. Hypnosis is far more effective than standard talk therapy -- although, I am sure psychologists would stongly disagree.
This whole article is about control of the industry, and money.
Don Gibbons, Ph.D. said:Can anyone tell me how regulating who can do hypnosis in the States will clean up the internet? Do we also ban instructional DVDs that are sold from India? So far as I know, this would require a ...unique... degree of restriction on the free press.
Just as reading a book on surgery will not make you qualified to become a surgeon, so reading a book on hypnosis will not qualify you to operate a professional hypnosis practice. But this does not imply that we should ban books on surgery, any more than we should ban books on how to hypnotize someone. So where do we go from here?
Featured Advertising
Latest Activity
Bill Kennedy commented on Taymara's blog post 'IQ84'
Roy Hunter replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'What is your favourite tool ?'
Barry Neale replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'Wow'
Hypno-Jay replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'What is your favourite tool ?'
Roy Hunter replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'Wow'
Spellbinde, Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com and 2 other members joined Michael Ellner's group
© 2012 Created by Scott Sandland.
About Us
Contact Us
Subscribe To RSS