Self-Policing and Regulation in the Hypnotherapy Profession

There have been several discussions on HypnoThoughts about government regulation of the hypnotherapy profession, including this one, started by the late Gil Boyne.

As a libertarian, I have a "live and let live" and "buyer beware" attitude about professional service providers, including hypnotherapists. I think government regulation is ineffective at both its stated purposes: 1.) guaranteeing a minimum level of competence in practitioners and 2.) preventing harm to clients. Its only value may be in providing the state and victimized clients some means of punishing offenders after the fact (when it's too late).

In fact, I think it's easy to make the case that government regulation may even do more harm than good by keeping gifted "lay" hypnotherapists out of the profession in some jurisdictions, while giving "licensed" or "certified" incompetent, unethical hacks a veneer of respectability.

However, others strenuously disagree with me and say that hypnotherapists can't be trusted to effectively deal with the bad apples in the barrel.

So, if for the sake of argument we agree that hypnotherapy should be a self-policing profession, who, exactly, is the police force?

Does the profession need a "Consumer Reports" or "Underwriters Laboratory" for hypnotherapists? Some kind of independent certifying body? An "Angie's List"-type of solution?

Or is this task best left to members of the hypnotherapy profession itself? If yes, here are a few hard questions for you...

What would you personally do if you discovered that a fellow hypnotherapist was actually harming clients through incompetence?

What would you personally do if you discovered that a fellow hypnotherapist was making outlandish, unprovable claims about hypnotherapy (snake oil-type claims)?

What would you personally do if you discovered that a fellow hypnotherapist was seducing or sexually abusing clients?

What would you personally do if you discovered that a fellow hypnotherapist was breaching client confidentiality?

What would you personally do if you discovered that a fellow hypnotherapist just wasn't any good at his or her job?

If the hypnotherapy community should police itself, how would you personally handle it if you found out there was a dangerous hypnotist loose in your community? What if it was someone you knew? What if it was your best friend?

Have you been in a situation like this before? How did you handle it?

Tags: ethics, hypnosis, hypnotherapy, professionalism, regulation

Favorite

4 members favorited this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amy Marsh on October 16, 2011 at 6:57am

Hi all, and thanks, Richard Clark, for posting this link.

It is good to know about this new ICBCH development. I went to the thread link and the following quote is copied from Richard Nongard's post in the other group. I am glad to have it, because I am collecting information about hypnotist boards and ethics, to include my course on Sexology for Hypnotists.

My comments:

While a good start, the ICBCH quote below (an incomplete portion of a larger statement?) does not address minimum standards of training and education which should be required in the areas of human sexuality and gender concerns for hypnotists.

Adequate training in human sexuality also seems to be lacking in many medical schools and psychology courses. 12 hours (which I have heard is the average in medical school) is simply not enough to master more than the rudiments. So, if in general, medical doctors and mental health professionals are not getting enough good human sexuality training in their own professions - unless they take additional courses to specialize - how can they know what standards to require and recommend when they refer a client to a hypnotist (or other complementary practitioner?).

As for training for hypnotists, I have done some research into this and have not seen any programs or workshops advertised which could apply toward meeting the basic standards set by such organizations as AASECT - the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists. Go to this link and you can see the sexuality education requirements for the categories of sex educators, counselors, and therapists.

From what I've seen, most trainers giving sexual dysfunction workshops for hypnotists also do not show evidence of training in this speciality either. They may be very good hypnotists, and have practical experience, but the fact remains, they are not trained enough in this particular area. There is one hypnosis school I've come across which does offer sexuality training - but from what I've read in the late founder's books, the sexuality portion of the curriculum may contain some profoundly distorted, inaccurate, and wildly outdated information. This is, I think, cause for concern. It is one reason I am now creating sexological courses for hypnotists.

I also want to point out that the ICBCH provision does not take into the account the expertise of another professional group, clinical sexologists, who have training in sexology, erotology, and human sexuality and gender concerns which far exceed the AASECT education requirements. (However, there is less emphasis on supervised hours in this training than there should be, in my opinion).

So, as we are considering a number of ethical questions - particularly with regard to the proper application of hypnosis to sexual problems - take a look at the AASECT site and check out the minimum standards in a closely related field. Then ask yourself how many professional hypnotists that you know who meet these requirements in the area of human sexuality. Then ask yourself how many you know who are treating sexual dysfunction and/or creating products for this, but without adequate training.

Is this an ethical problem, do you think? Could we do better as individuals and as a profession if we had good training in this area? Would our clients have more confidence in hypnotism in general if we did have minimum standards for offering this hypnosis speciality? Yes, I think so, on all counts.

Amy

Quote taken from the link to Richard Nongard's post:

(Begining of quote.) "ICBCH Certified Hypnotists who offer professional services addressing sexual enhancement, performance or functioning are required to hold professional licensure as medical or mental health professionals or have written referral from a licensed profession to render services related to sexuality.

In addition to this new provision, existing provisions in the code of ethics include avoidance of dual relationships, the importance of professional fee structures, the avoidance of sex with clients and providing informed consent.

I have always been a supported of the non-licensed professional hypnotist and will continue to be. However in the area of sexual performance, functioning and sexual enhancement, the risks of unlicensed hypnotists failing to practice within scope of practice laws and failing to uphold professional standards without accountability necessitate this provision.

Those who practice “erotic” hypnosis for recreational purposes within the context of mutually consensual relationships are not practicing a professional service and would not be considered to need a referral or a professional license. After all, I frequently teach couples how to use hypnosis to enhance intimacy and nothing in this policy should be construed to mean one person cannot positively impact another consensual adult using hypnotic methods. But it is far different for a husband or wife to help their partner enhance performance and responsiveness than it is to say “I am a professional and can help you fix your problem”. This would of course, also not apply to stage hypnotists who may use sexual themes as part of a public presentation; as they are not proporting to enhance sexual performance, or functioning and are not, as stage hypnotists, representing themselves as anything other than entertainers." (end of quote).

Richard Clark MFT said:

For those that believe this discussion to be fruitless (as I did originally), I'd like you to look at the bold and, I think brilliant step that the ICBCH has taken to answer the challenge of improving self regulation.

http://www.hypnothoughts.com/group/professionalcoachingandnlp/forum...

What do you think?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Clark MFT on October 16, 2011 at 2:18pm

Hi Amy,

I looked at the requirements for AASECT, Sex Therapist qualifications and while some health and mental health professions don't cover the areas in depth, I think most Marriage and Family Therapy training programs do (except, of course, history of sexology).

Richard

Amy Marsh said:

While a good start, the ICBCH quote below (an incomplete portion of a larger statement?) does not address minimum standards of training and education which should be required in the areas of human sexuality and gender concerns for hypnotists.

Adequate training in human sexuality also seems to be lacking in many medical schools and psychology courses. 12 hours (which I have heard is the average in medical school) is simply not enough to master more than the rudiments. So, if in general, medical doctors and mental health professionals are not getting enough good human sexuality training in their own professions - unless they take additional courses to specialize - how can they know what standards to require and recommend when they refer a client to a hypnotist (or other complementary practitioner?).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com on October 16, 2011 at 3:07pm

Simple- various problems at various levels require referral to different levels of expertise. The ICBCH guidelines are to potentially limit obvious ethical dilemmas. I would hope referrals are to qualified individuals, and that licensed individuals only accept clients they are qualified to treat (after all, that is already an existing part of ethical guidelines for licensed mental health professionals). And so, it is not necessary to spell out each and every level of potential referral a practitioner may or may not utilize. That would make the code of ethics an ethics BOOK not a document.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amy Marsh on October 17, 2011 at 5:57am

Thanks, Richard, yes, the MFTs are certainly ahead of the game. Though I made comments about sexuality training in other professions, I am chiefly concerned about professional hypnotists in this post, and the dearth of good sexuality education programs and training for them in this area.

With aloha,

Amy

Richard Clark MFT said:

Hi Amy,

I looked at the requirements for AASECT, Sex Therapist qualifications and while some health and mental health professions don't cover the areas in depth, I think most Marriage and Family Therapy training programs do (except, of course, history of sexology).

Richard

Amy Marsh said:

While a good start, the ICBCH quote below (an incomplete portion of a larger statement?) does not address minimum standards of training and education which should be required in the areas of human sexuality and gender concerns for hypnotists.

Adequate training in human sexuality also seems to be lacking in many medical schools and psychology courses. 12 hours (which I have heard is the average in medical school) is simply not enough to master more than the rudiments. So, if in general, medical doctors and mental health professionals are not getting enough good human sexuality training in their own professions - unless they take additional courses to specialize - how can they know what standards to require and recommend when they refer a client to a hypnotist (or other complementary practitioner?).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amy Marsh on October 17, 2011 at 6:02am

Thanks, Richard (replying to two Richards from one post is VERY interesting! LOL!),

You are right - spelling out a number of specific rules for every little thing could result in a lengthy document - though not quite a book. Perhaps a novella...

I hope I didn't come across as snarky about the ICBCH statement, though I did use it to illustrate a point. I continue to think that if we had a generalized understanding of basic competencies in hypnotic sexuality and gender work, and training which would allow professional hypnotists to gain these competencies - that this would be a step forward for all of us, as well as our clients.

With aloha,

Amy

Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com said:

Simple- various problems at various levels require referral to different levels of expertise. The ICBCH guidelines are to potentially limit obvious ethical dilemmas. I would hope referrals are to qualified individuals, and that licensed individuals only accept clients they are qualified to treat (after all, that is already an existing part of ethical guidelines for licensed mental health professionals). And so, it is not necessary to spell out each and every level of potential referral a practitioner may or may not utilize. That would make the code of ethics an ethics BOOK not a document.