Human Bridge pro & con

I simply do not understand the violent antipathy of Mr. Thompson (and some others) to a carefully-performed human bridge routine. In all hypnosis history I have heard of only two injuries from reputable sources, one in the nineteenth century and one in the twenty-first, and both times there seems to have been unnecessary additonal sensationalism added. The HRH/Willis stage safety committee has at least two members, Mssrs. Silvers and Darrow, who perform the human bridge, and among reputable posters here I see Mr. Szeles, Mr. Knight, Mr. Johnny Fredman, and a few others who regularly performed or perform the routine. I would not label any of them as irresponsible. None, nada, zero, zip of the multiple claims against Specialty Insurance in '06 - '07 were for any bridge or bridge-like stunts resulting in pain or injury. Before '08 it was not even mentioned as an exclusion on the certificate of insurance. A colleague of mine searched the insurance actuarial tables and could not find a claim made because of the bridge in the 20th Century.
> Another poster states that performing the human bridge voids your insurance. I don't think that's accurate. To be precise, a claim made against the insurance company resulting from a human bridge will not be covered or defended, and then they will cancel your insurance. I doubt there is a penalty for performing an excluded routine without consequence.t;I think the bridge has been made a bete noir or whipping boy simply because it can be named, and those stunts that have caused injury, all of which can only be categorized as either abreaction causation or "horsing around" are not easily named, described or excluded.
>My belief is the key to our discussion here should be Mr. Szeles' comment that it should be "done right." It seems that standards for a safe bridge are easily written, and can be adhered to. The subject shall be selected for fitness and depth, an assurance of his/her good health will be acquired on-mike, the catalepsy shall be induced gradually and in the passive voice, the subject shall remain stationary throughout the routine, supported under the shoulders and not the neck, not be suspended more than a chair seat's height from the floor, and not be stood upon or otherwise made to hold up heavy weights.
> I am an advocate of the bridge (done under these conditions) because audiences have demanded it (or equivalently demanded "real hypnosis"), it is a spectacular crowd-pleaser, and it is the ultimate convincer. I read in last month's NGH magazine the account of a respected hypnotherapist who did not believe in hypnosis until he watched his sister made into a human bridge. We entertain not just with humor, but with spectacle.
> I agree with Dr. Mitchell when he says we need convincing hypnotic phenomena on stage to entice people to hypnosis to solve their problems. I would say the only justification for stage hypnosis is to demonstrate the powers of the human mind for both fun and self-improvement. Every show should be, as entertainingly as possible, propaganda for hypnotherapy and self-hypnosis. I note that almost all condemnation of stage hypnosis by the medical/academic community has not been on the grounds of safety but on the grounds of taste, trivialization of a "medical" technique, or mischaracterization of hypnosis.
>Of course I disagree with Mr. Thompson when he says the routine is only physics. Of course a healthy wide-awake person can become rigid by forcing him/her self, but some form of mental concentration is still involved. It is the ease of accomplishment, when hypnosis is involved, that makes the bridge special. Back when the routine was insured and I performed it, I got word of two of my bridge subjects attempting to replicate the stunt while awake. Both were heard to say, "It's way easier when you're hypnotized."
>A similar discussion caused rather a storm on the NGH Forum awhile back. I respectfully sign this and slink off to my foxhole for awhile.