hypnosis, information, hypnotherapy, NLP, community, Scott Sandland, learn, Nuero Linguistic Programming, hypnotist
the Free Online Hypnosis Community
Hypnosis, along with any other form of alternative therapy, has a tendency to come off like snake oil. We can fix anything, doesn't matter what it is, whether it has a mental or biological cause, whether it is a minor annoyance, a major life problem or potentially a life threatening disease. This is where I start to have problems. As an adjunct therapy, I see hypnosis as a major tool for people with say, cancer. By itself, whereas hypnosis might be able to work a miracle, it's taking a major risk, on a par with a game of russian roulette where half the chambers are loaded.
An article I recently read (Discover Magazine, Feb 2008, Cancer's Many Moods, Jennifer Barone) presents findings by psychologist James Coyne that having a positive outlook doesn't appear to affect life expectancy in Cancer Patients at all. Pending a whole lot more research I'll hold off on taking a stance on that. What the article does Not address is quality of life. At the bare minimum, hypnotherapy for someone who has cancer gives them something else they can Do to influence their condition. Empowering a patient with a life threatening disease will help their quality of life, regardless of whether it in fact helps to 'cure' them.
Where my challenge comes in is when a client or a therapist starts talking about using hypnosis alone to change physical conditions that are life threatening. Miracles Do happen and hypnosis has effected miraculous changes in physical function. Check out the Placebo Effect episode of Radiolab (New York Public Radio, WNYC) for a great story about that. The thing about miracles is that if they happened all the time, they wouldn't be miracles.
11 Comments
Add a Comment
© 2008 Created by Scott Sandland, C.Ht. Scott is not responsible for the information or opinions shared on HypnoThoughts or the actions of its members.
The press will latch on to any pilot study that shows any result that may be controversial, or, better yet, SCARY, and publish it like it is Gospel, when the study population might only be thirty people (a statistically insufficient sample) or fail to mention that they didn't control for other confounding variables - how many of the sample population were in what stage OF their cancer and what TYPE of cancer did they have? What control groups did they use and how did they control FOR the nbon-use of hypnosis? How did they evaluate the EFFECTIVENESS of the hypnotic state? Did they use a standardized, "one induction works for all" induction - or did they tailor the session content to the individual patients? If so, how did they control for the variations that such changes in methodology would undoubtedly produce in trance viability?
Without knowing such critical factors, it is very difficult to tell whether the study is worthwhile.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.H.