THE PTS STUDY GROUP
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 GIL BOYNE on
-
Hello John Brochu, Here is another way the bankrupt state of California picks on the little guy (3000 vocational schools).
This is a letter sent by Katherine Simmerman to her Calif. State Representative.
Mariko Yamada
State Capitol
Room 5144
Sacramento, CA 94249-0008
Dear Assemblymember Yamada,
I need your assistance. On October 11, 2009 Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 48 (Portantino, Chapter 310, Statutes of 2009) AB 48 is known as the Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009. ("Act")
It is the following section of this Act that concerns me:
94930.5. An institution shall remit to the bureau for deposit in the Private Postsecondary Education Administration Fund the following fees, in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution
submitting an application for an approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Application fee for an approval to operate: five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(2) Application fee for the approval to operate a new branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000).
(3) Application fee for an approval to operate by means of accreditation: seven hundred fifty dollars ($750).
(b) The following fees shall be remitted by an institution seeking a renewal of its approval to operate, if applicable:
(1) Renewal fee for the main campus of the institution: three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500).
I operate a small vocational school. We average about 12 students annually. Prior to AB 48 the renewal fee for a small school was only $595. This bill doesn't have a sliding scale and will put many small vocational schools out of business. Teaching larger classes puts the quality of the students' education in jeopardy.
John said;716892%3ATopic%3A365212&page=1#716892Comment365239">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 Grace Joubarne on -
Hello,
I may be oversimplying the 'issue', but as I see it, we need to focus on two things:
a. clean up our act where need be...we are all bright and passionate, I'm sure we can come up with really great ideas as to how to do this. for eg. a website listing the scam artists amongst us...something along the lines of the site listing fraudulent educational institutions. http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/Education_Degree_Scams_Unaccr...
b. remember to keep repeating that psychiatrists/psychologists are the very last people who should be permitted to use hypnosis in treatment situations...even after scammers and fraudsters and it has already been proven. While no professional hypnotists, to my knoweldge, have ever been discredited in court (the last word on legitimacy), the 1990's were littered with court cases involving those professions abusing hypnosis and their patients. Scammers typically only take a victim's money, these folks stole money and lives and did irreversible damage thousands of times...with the blessing of their entire association I might add.
I'm not sure why we get our shorts in a knot over these attempts by psychologists to 'take over' hypnosis and put us out of business. They have already proven they are not trustworthy...best sellers were written about them. What we need to do is to put out lots of articles out there (10 for every one of theirs), to remind the public of the reasons they should not be trusted with hypnosis ever again.
I guess my question is 'why aren't we countering their nonsense with facts in a way that let's the general public and psychiatrists/pscyhologists hear us loud and clear?' They wouldn't be writing so much of that trash if they knew it would be met with lots of bad publicity for them. They are always holding themselves out to be 'more expert' then us on the basis that they have higher standards, etc....well they weren't able to meet their own standards, so why should they be permitted to criticize ours without some meaningful rebuttal from us (in strategic locations) that the public can review for themselves?
This is a wonderful site for facts/background to tackle psychiatrists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry for instance. Making Monsters and Manufacturing Victims are excellent sources on facts about pscyholgists and hypnosis. We have the ammunition; why are we so afraid to get writing and publishing?
I write for a newspaper, a print magazine and an on-line magazine. I make it my personal mission to keep it fresh in the minds of readers that there is a huge difference between psychologists/psychiatrists and hypnotherapists, repeating real facts those professions cannot challenge. I would love to see every fellow hypnotherapist write a minimum of 1 article every week. Several hundred, maybe thousands of articles each week saturating the media, blogs, etc. would make a huge difference.
Just my thoughts...
warm regards,
Grace
Conrad Cook said:Scott Sandland, C.Ht. said:So is it fair to say 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.
That's fair; but the question is how separate they are.
It sounds to me that those who are pro-regulation use 1 to justify 2, without which they have a much weaker case for regulation. Those who are anti-regulation say that 1 does not justify 2, by various arguments.
In my opinion, the reason that the debate is shaped this way is that the push for regulation relies on drumming up a kind of panic over (1a) purported innocent victims of hucksters and (1b) "all the damage" that "those people" do to "the profession." I'm talking especially about the article that Gil posted. These are malarky arguments, meant to get at people's emotions, at their vulnerabilities about being shamed and their desire for social justice, and make it seem that by regulating hypnosis we would make the world a better, shiner place.
That's in contrast to a rational argument, such as that regulating hypnosis would benefit us by allowing us (those who are "in") to take medical insurance and boost our customer base, while whittling down our competition by excluding people who can't pay the fees. Or, similarly, that hypnosis should be legal only for M.D.'s, for similar reasons.
Conrad.
ps - 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.
C.
-
Permalink Reply by Roy Hunter on
-
This thread has really raised some hairs on a lot of professionals…and no wonder, because it is very personal to all of us who believe in hypnotherapy.
I first learned about the work of Gil Boyne in 1983, while studying hypnosis under Charles Tebbetts. While my mentor was recognized as the pioneer of parts therapy, he gave Gil Boyne credit for many of his teachings…even after Tebbetts left the ACHE in the late 1980’s. Tebbetts openly admitted that he learned regression therapy from Boyne, as well as many other techniques.
As Gil himself would admit, he has stirred much controversy both within and outside our profession. This certainly motivated many people to think, and has probably resulted in more good than many hypnotherapists realize in spite of some hurt feelings. Also, Gil was awarded the “Man of the Century” Award from the International Hypnosis Hall of Fame for his numerous accomplishments before the IHHF went into limbo primarily due to lack of funding.
In my opinion, the ACHE can truthfully boast the most comprehensive hypnotherapy training programs of any hypnosis association in the USA for over three decades; and that says a lot. I believe that our profession would be far better off today if all hypnosis associations had emulated the more comprehensive training programs of the ACHE rather than turning out “Certified” practitioners in only one or two weeks for over three decades. These short training programs gave the psychology profession ammunition to use against us.
Raymond LeBleu raised some interesting food for thought regarding the battle between Chiropractors and the AMA. Note that a chiropractor personally told me of this battle over ten years ago.
Also note that during the late 1990’s, a clinical psychologist who attended one of my parts therapy workshops told me afterwards that it was his opinion that the HYPNOTHERAPY profession should control hypnosis, even when done by an MD or PhD. Naturally, he wanted to remain anonymous because of possible consequences from the ASCH. He added that he learned far more about hypnotherapy from the “lay hypnosis” community than he did from ASCH.
Since that discussion I learned that Martin Orne first learned hypnosis from the NGH many years ago. How is it that the same people who learned hypnosis decided to turn against the very people they learned it from?
We cannot give up; but at the same time we have sometimes been our own worst enemy because of the “quickie” training programs as well as the internal attacks.
Hypnosis is an art, and artists often disagree. It is HOW we disagree that separates the adults from the children. Adults can agree to disagree, while less mature people seem obsessed to convince people to accept their opinions. Some time ago, one psychologist expressed to me the opinion that flaming internal criticisms make us look unprofessional to outsiders. So perhaps we can start by looking in the mirror and ask ourselves what WE can do to become more professional at the art of hypnotherapy.
The next step, or perhaps a step that we can take at the same time, is to fight for our constitutional right to practice professional hypnotherapy before the elitists derive the general public from their right of choice.
Roy Hunter, Ph.D., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
-
-
Thank you Roy for telling the facts as you have discovered them over the years. I always appreciate your reasoned posts.Roy Hunter said:This thread has really raised some hairs on a lot of professionals…and no wonder, because it is very personal to all of us who believe in hypnotherapy.
I first learned about the work of Gil Boyne in 1983, while studying hypnosis under Charles Tebbetts. While my mentor was recognized as the pioneer of parts therapy, he gave Gil Boyne credit for many of his teachings…even after Tebbetts left the ACHE in the late 1980’s. Tebbetts openly admitted that he learned regression therapy from Boyne, as well as many other techniques.
As Gil himself would admit, he has stirred much controversy both within and outside our profession. This certainly motivated many people to think, and has probably resulted in more good than many hypnotherapists realize in spite of some hurt feelings. Also, Gil was awarded the “Man of the Century” Award from the International Hypnosis Hall of Fame for his numerous accomplishments before the IHHF went into limbo primarily due to lack of funding.
In my opinion, the ACHE can truthfully boast the most comprehensive hypnotherapy training programs of any hypnosis association in the USA for over three decades; and that says a lot. I believe that our profession would be far better off today if all hypnosis associations had emulated the more comprehensive training programs of the ACHE rather than turning out “Certified” practitioners in only one or two weeks for over three decades. These short training programs gave the psychology profession ammunition to use against us.
.
Also note that during the late 1990’s, a clinical psychologist who attended one of my parts therapy workshops told me afterwards that it was his opinion that the HYPNOTHERAPY profession should control hypnosis, even when done by an MD or PhD. Naturally, he wanted to remain anonymous because of possible consequences from the ASCH. He added that he learned far more about hypnotherapy from the “lay hypnosis” community than he did from ASCH.
Since that discussion I learned that Martin Orne first learned hypnosis from the NGH many years ago. How is it that the same people who learned hypnosis decided to turn against the very people they learned it from?
We cannot give up; but at the same time we have sometimes been our own worst enemy because of the “quickie” training programs as well as the internal attacks.
Hypnosis is an art, and artists often disagree. It is HOW we disagree that separates the adults from the children.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
Featured Advertising
Latest Activity
Spellbinde, Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com and 2 other members joined Michael Ellner's group
Spellbinde, Suggestive Celine -"The Queen of and 3 other members joined Leshem Yosef's group
Roger Moore replied to Dan Kern's discussion 'HypnoBand Vs Bariatric operations' in the group ICBCH: Hypnosis, NLP & Coaching
Don commented on Don's blog post 'Spontaneous Orgasms and Hypnosis (Revised)'
Discussion posted by Brian Sanders, Maryland Hypnosis
Don replied to Lorrie Hale-Ozbey's discussion 'NLP and Human Performance Technology'
Seth-Deborah Roth replied to Steve G. Jones's discussion 'Hypnotherapy Regulation'
Roy Hunter replied to Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com's discussion 'Informed Consent'
© 2012 Created by Scott Sandland.
About Us
Contact Us
Subscribe To RSS