The Mighty Thor said:
I have no desire to police hypnotherapy. I am sceptical, as are others, of its efficacy. That is merely my opinion, shared by some others.
Quite frankly, if there is a
single MD anywhere in the world who does not accept that regular relaxation, stress management and concentration exercises coupled with a positive mental attitude does not have clear palliative, remedial and curative effects they should hang up their white coats.
How many times do skeptics need to see evidence that hypnotherapy can boost the immune system, for example? Or that it can treat IBS? To deny it's efficacy is to deny the efficacy of going to sleep at night (which is when your body does a lot of it's maintenance work). Why do you think hospitals insist (most of the time) on bed-rest if not because when you're relaxed your body uses its energy to heal itself?
I feel like I'm arguing with one of those people who doesn't believe we've been to the moon...
We are questioning your statement that hypnotherapy can do no harm, remember.
And I am still asserting that exploring or discussing traumatic experiences without hypnosis is like driving through an obstacle course without your seatbelt on. This is
self-evident, as soon as you think or talk about a traumatic experience your psychophysiological state changes. All you have to do is compare that to viewing the whole episode on a cinema screen in a relaxed state to 'feel' the difference.
Look, correlation is not causation in regards to age regression = false memory syndrome because it's an entirely socio-cognitive affair that seems to
occur with certain therapists in particular while it never seems to happen to others... You keep mentioning the Orkney affair which, to my knowledge, didn't involve the use of hypnosis
at all. Surely this demonstrates that all therapy is a socio-cognitive affair regardless of whether or not you have your eyes closed.
Patients might very well be encouraged to confabulate if they have a pushy therapist who insists they're holding things back - but then you also need a patient who both agrees within themselves to confabulate and, furthermore, to confabulate stories of satanic ritual sexual abuse...
Here's my problem with all of the above. I look at hypnosis and see a relaxed state of focussed attention. You seem to see something more – something beyond the socio-cognitive that appears to include ideas about hypnotic automatism and/or hypnotic control. I, coming from experience, know that it can be hard enough as it is to get people to look at biting their nails differently let alone to attempt to convince them that they've participated in satanic ritual sexual abuse! And consider just how detailed these stories always are...
It's very easy to conclude that patients, by the very fact that they may have sought help for being emotionally disturbed (even if this had not been apparent previously to family, friends and colleagues), have been the obvious victims of a severely misguided therapist. But, no matter how cruel it might appear to some, I do not see how we can entirely dismiss the possibility that the patients themselves might, on more than one occasion, have had a strong role in producing these fantasies. Individuals who have been hurt in the past can frequently lash out at others who might have had nothing to do with the original incident,
particularly those who they believe should have protected them. Thus, we have to consider the possibility that false allegation of sexual abuse against a parent could be a way the patient is using to punish the parent for something entirely unrelated to sexual abuse...
Do people (other than the psychotic) who have not previously had hypnotic regression describe 'past lives' in conventional psychotherapy? I honestly don't know.
To my knowledge 'past lives' are, allegedly, recalled in dreams, meditation, hypnotic regression, guided imagery, free association and from 'flashes', 'feelings' or 'sensations' in everyday life. As for the recall of past-lives under hypnosis, I feel this strongly supports the socio-cognitive theory. Both parties, agree to explore past lives and probably have very firm beliefs that such things exist. Thus the therapist is happy to encourage the client to relate what they see in their mind's eye and the client is happy to please. Equate that with a situation of claims about satanic ritual sexual abuse and you'll realise how this is a socio-cognitive affair and inherently due to something specific about the nature of hypnoanalysis.
How do you distinguish false memories from real memories in someone in a state of hypnotic regression?
This question again assumes something specific about hypnosis. But the answer, of course, is that the same rules apply for hypnosis as they do for normal recollection. Without outside corroboration you cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.
If you or one of your colleagues do get presented with a client's report of Satanic Ritual Abuse that you judge to be confabulated, (let's say it includes ghosts flying in and out of closed windows) do you report it to the authorities?
What for? To look like an idiot? Someone who claimed things like this would probably be asked not to come back or told to see a psychiatrist.
I hope one of the professionals here can point to the relevant papers. The two experiments I am aware of, as a layman, concern a group of people being hypnotised and being introduced to a false memory (seeing a mobile over their cot as a first memory). None produced this memory when in a waking state, but 50% did relate this memory under subsequent hypnotic regression. The other case was with the implanted 'lost in the mall' scenario.
Without seeing these papers I can't comment upon these, admittedly, interesting anecdotes.
I suppose you could say 'hypnotherapists do not implant false memories.' But how do you know that some hypnotherapists don't implant false memories, even if unintentionally?
I very much doubt it's possible to ever converse with anyone without leading them somehow. But your comments still appear to include the idea that there is something specific about hypnosis that makes this more likely – but you still haven't provided any information about what that is.
If you found out that they did, would you censure them? Who would? Don't 'professionals' have 'professional bodies' who regulate their profession? You might 'be going in that direction', but you are not
there yet.
Actually, the bodies that currently exist do have codes of conduct, training
requirements, complaints procedures, supervision arrangements, etc., etc.,
So, why should society not be wary of a bunch of Tom, Dick, and Harry, DIY, possibly poorly-trained, pseudo-professionals who mess with peoples lives and minds?
You're still assuming that we have the power to 'mess with peoples lives and minds'. I ask again, how is this possible?
Thousands upon thousands of hypnotherapy sessions are conducted each day of every month of every year. Occasionally, one hears about recovered memories of 'satanic ritual abuse', usually an America, involving a therapist who has made a string of these allegations (or has a string of these allegations made against them)
and usually not involving the use of hypnosis. I'd estimate you have about 100 times more chance of being hit by lightning than walking away from your hypno session believing that you've been part of satanic ritual sex abuse as a child...
If I can't convince you of that now, what exactly makes you think I can convince you of it under hypnosis? You are, by necessity, including ideas about hypnotic automatism - that the hypno has control of you.
You have to prove conclusively that there is some kind of hypnotic control via which a therapist can implant false memories. Otherwise, common sense dictates that we accept the socio-cognitive explanation.
Why doesn't this control present itself when the exact same thing is described as guided meditation, I wonder? (Frankly, if you can show hypnotic automatism I think Randi should give you the million bucks he has on offer.)
How is society to judge who are the 'good' hypnotherapists, and who are the 'bad'? It's a poor excuse to say these wannabee professionals will just call themselves something different to avoid accreditation. Not a very ethical argument, is it?
On the contrary it is extremely ethical to advocate that people are kept under some type of monitoring and supervision and are insured. What benefits will it really bring to place people outside the scope of the radar.
You failed to address many of the points I raised about ethics and standards, and about how much a session typically costs.
Actually, I've written quite a lot on those subjects only to have them lost in the forum upheaval. Look into main UK umbrella hypontherapy bodies and download a copy of their code of ethics, training requirements, complainst procedure and accreditation process for yourself. Off hand, I can tell you that they're all pretty much identical in that it's 5 years to become a fully accredited hypnotherapist in the UK.
I am not attacking you personally. I assume that your motives are genuinely beneficent. So please do not try to characterise me as some kind of lone anti-hypnotherapy crusader.
I wouldn't say that - but you are looking at this from the outside and advocating solutions that just won't work and will actually cause problems. You're asking question that don't make much sense in terms of what we actually do and what actually goes on but probably make sense in terms of what you imagine we do and imagine goes on.
I have to ask you:
is it your belief, contention or desire that hypnotherapy only ever be practiced by, say, doctors and psychologists as an adjunct to their work and that it never be a stand-alone profession no matter how many years a therapist trains for or what is covered in the curriculum?
Remember, the subject came up in another thread. I am criticising your statement that ''hypnotherapy/hypnosis can do no harm', when clearly it has done in the past.
Being in a relaxed state has absolutely never done anyone any harm anywhere. FMS, once again, is certain patients and therapists fooling each other and, most often, when they're not using hypnosis.
In fact, I think you and tonyb have admitted this. So, what's the argument? I am by no means saying 'all hypnotherapy is harmful'.
It's the context that's the problem. Were you to say: "It's a tiny minority of therapists who can be harmful, but this requires them coming together with another specific and small minority of patients, in situations where hypnoanalysis is occasionally, though most often not, used." then I'd be more sympathetic to your position. It's when you state "hypnotherapy can be harmful" that I object.
So, how do we (as consumers) sort the wheat from the chaff in your field? Your previous advice was a very hit and miss affair.
I don't recall giving you any previous advice on this issue - or being asked for it... but the best advice I can give you is to ask a potential therapist who they trained with and perhaps look up the school yourself. Lots of people advocate asking how long the therapist has been in practice and whether or not they've treated your particular presenting issue before, but to me this is a bit silly. How can someone change the fact that they're just starting out while the guy in the next town's been doing it for 20 years? Similarly, everyone has to treat every
presenting issue for the first time.
And how do you and your colleagues ensure that past mistakes that had devastating consequences are not repeated?
That's an easy one. The hypno-gossip grapevine is quite possibly quicker than the internet and even more resistant to nuclear attack! If anyone caused devastating consequences they'd certainly be out of their society and their names would be known so that they couldn't join another one. As for what had actually occurred, you'd likely find that it had already been ruled against (such as, not forming sexual relationships with your patients). Sadly, there is no way of knowing who is going to break these rules in any therapy.
BTW, you say that memories of Satanic Abuse and the like are unlikely to come up in your country practice. What about UFO sightings and abductions? Do you ever get any of those, and, if so, what do you think about such reports?
You hear rumours about this kind of thing, but in one case I recall the patient actually went to the therapist claiming they'd been abducted and wanted to use hyponosis to recall more information about it. (The therapist refused to treat them.) I imagine you'll find that the hypnos who do this kind of work are probably firm believers in abduction already – so again it's all socio-cognitive. (As to whether or not abduction really occurs – who knows?)
Why does Budd Hopkins get so many? Would you say he is a good hypnotherapist who does no harm?
Budd Hopkins gets these people because that's his market and what he's known for. Whether or not he actually does harm is hard to say since it appears that 99.9% of his clients already believe they've been abducted anyway. At the very least they must be open to the idea when they visit him.
Oh, and is hypnotherapy available on the NHS in the UK?
Increasingly, yes. But it can be extremely hard to get an appointment with a doctor, nurse or psychologist who's trained to do this. This has meant that there are an increasing number of 'lay practitioners', who have trained with schools known to have good curriculums and standards, being employed by the NHS. With funding, however, it's not a priority for the NHS to hire hypnotherapists. Understandably, they're more likely to provide patients with tapes/CD's relevant to their condition or ask them to seek out a therapist privately. It's certainly becoming more and more in demand and my belief is that while patients will still be expected to pay for part of their treatment the NHS will negotiate contributions somehow.
All the best,
Fortean Stephen
tonyb's bedside manner is much more decorous.