Hypnosis and hypnotherapy

[HypnoPsi]

Well, Stephen, maybe you need to work on your self-relaxation techniques tonyb's bedside manner is much more decorous.

I'm not quite sure how you can expect to be treated with kid gloves when you're making swathing statements about therapists and your pronouncements could have serious impact on patient care.... I welcome your comments that hypnotherapy clearly has a bright future, but if you're big enough to enter a serious debate with some serious comments I think you should be prepared to justify your stance...

I will probably buy one of the books you linked to, since I have personal experience of two WWII vets. They were both of the 'we don't talk abot the war' types, and both worked all their lives until retirement age. It was only then that they seemed to deteriorate with PTSD. One was a gentle man, the other a hard guy, but they both succumbed with increased dysfunction when their wives died. One was my dad, the other is my father-in-law.

You have my sympathies. Maybe I should give you a more comprehensive view of my position - I view hypnotherapy to be as harmless and valuable as physiotherapy and dietetics and have a firm belief that all the silliness that surrounds it will eventualy be viewed as one of the greatest medical/psychological superstitions of all time. If you think I'm being too hard on you, bear in mind that it's because I know first hand the effects that fears about hypnotherapists can cause. People with, say, serious heart conditions or cancer could benefit immensely from the treatments we provide for chronic pain and having their immune system boosted. Yet, all too often we find ourselves battling against unjustified fears and concerns - and we also have our careers to consider. When you make statements of the sort your making don't be too surprised to find yourself on the receiving end of the odd swipe or two.

Your last paragraph is wrong. I hope hypnotherapy as well as other therapies can help people without them having to get ECT, as my dad did. And it did help -- for a week after the shocks, he was back to his old self, but seemed to revert back to lethargy and depression after one or two weeks.

And this is the type of thing that we would like to be able to treat - and we definately could - without having to jump through hoops every time. You have to understand that the things that come up in hypnoanalysis are more likely to be: "Wow! I haven't about that for ages. I must have been about 5 or 6. We were at the beach and this dinghy I was started to drift out to sea. I was terrified when the waves started to hit me. I recall my father swiming out to get me and taking me back to may mother. I must have cried my eyes out for about an hour!"

I've expressed my concerns to the best of my ability. I'm no expert, and certainly not a crusader. But I think, if you are honest with yourself, you will see why people might ask such questions. They want the best, most appropriate treatment for their loved ones. What's wrong with that? I don't have 'an agenda', btw, but as a potential client, I think I have the right to expect courteous answers for my concerns. Whether they convince me or not, is up to me.

Don't play games. You are a skeptic on a forum devoted to discussing the reality or nonreality of the paranormal and began a thread to debate the safety of hypnotherapy. You are not some innocent here who is merely considering hypnotherapy personally or concerned for a loved one who may be doing so.

My point here is that you are making several claims about hypnotherapy that seem to be either wholly unwarranted entirely or blown out of all proportion. You are right in that therapists should have the deepest concern for the safety and well being of their patients - but whether you like it or not that also means pointing out, sometimes pointedly, when people might be saying things that could, needlessly, scare people out of seeking treatment.

You've been discussing false memory syndrome but what about the false beliefs that you are encouraging? If you're going to be a critic that's fine - but you have to bear in mind that your criticisms will have impact. Thus, no kid-gloves.

Now as I try to go to sleep, I will do my abdominal deap breathing and take myself off to my favourite relaxing spot. That usually works for me.

And don't forget your affirmations... ;-)

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[The Mighty Thor]

hypnopsi
Don't play games. You are a skeptic on a forum devoted to discussing the reality or nonreality of the paranormal and began a thread to debate the safety of hypnotherapy. You are not some innocent here who is merely considering hypnotherapy personally or concerned for a loved one who may be doing so.

That rant was totally AD HOMINEM and uncalled for.

LESSON TO READER:

PICK YOUR HYPNOTHERAPIST WITH CAUTION. SOME MAY BE UNCOUTH RAVING FANATICS WHO ARE IN IT ONLY FOR THE MONEY.

Let's get this straight, Stephen. Your chosen occupation is borderline on becoming accepted by the medical establishment. It has some proven benefits. Much more research would have to be done to establish exactly where they are applicable and worth paying for in the increasingly bewildering marketplace of alternative and complimentary therapies presented to sufferers.

People with, say, serious heart conditions or cancer could benefit immensely from the treatments we provide for chronic pain and having their immune system boosted.

Evidence? Or is 'could' the operative word?

People could benefit from drinking a glass of their own urine every day.

I do not know how worthy your accreditation might be in the UK. In the USA, accreditation for hypnotherapists appears to be a joke.

This thread was only started when YOU claimed that hypnosis is safe. (I took this to mean TOTALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY so) This is just not true. One of the first replies pointed this out and gave a positive link for the possible analgesic effect.

The Don If something is safe then it can't be effective and vice versa.

So if it has an effect it cannot be 100% safe.

Here is a study which seems to indicate that hypnotherapy had an analgesic effect http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15277295

Hypnotism might be safely applied to me and be completely safe -- and ineffectual. But you cannot say that no harm has been done. Hypnosis is the tool both in stage hypnotism and hypnotherapy. There has been harm done in both areas. I have actually witnessed physical injury to a member of the public occuring in a stage hypnotism act that was closed down at the venue that very night. I have referred you to cases where hypnotherapy has caused harm with FMS.

Do you agree that if some harm has occured, an activity is not SAFE?

If you do, then that's the end of the debate.

If you want to argue equivalency and parity of esteem with the established medical profession, that is an entirely different issue. Look at the title of the thread!

Indeed, your over-reactive defensiveness is making me more suspicious. So, I suggest you put the kid gloves back on, and start thinking about what you are saying.

 

[HypnoPsi]

That rant was totally AD HOMINEM and uncalled for. LESSON TO READER: PICK YOUR HYPNOTHERAPIST WITH CAUTION. SOME MAY BE UNCOUTH RAVING FANATICS WHO ARE IN IT ONLY FOR THE MONEY.

I think you might want to take some time out if you seriously perceive what I wrote as a "rant".... I will say with all sincerety that it wasn't - though I appreciate how easy it can be to project emotoin into plain text.

Let's get this straight, Stephen. Your chosen occupation is borderline on becoming accepted by the medical establishment. It has some proven benefits. Much more research would have to be done to establish exactly where they are applicable and worth paying for in the increasingly bewildering marketplace of alternative and complimentary therapies presented to sufferers.

Human physiology and biochemistry are already perfectly well understood to medical scientists and physiologists. You are looking at this from the level of effect and saying "Wow, that's just great! But how on earth can hypnotherapy do that?" while forgetting that 90% of the exact same things happen when you go to sleep at night.

Your positive comments about hypnotherapy really are genuinely appreciated but you are tripping yourself up by thinking of hypnosis as a "thing" in and of itself. (I won't deny there is some truth to that, but it comes much later on.) If you really want to get your head around this then you have to think in terms of how the body heals itself during rest and lay aside the idea of hypnosis for the time being. Honestly, you are unnecessarily over-complicating things.

I wrote:
"People with, say, serious heart conditions or cancer could benefit immensely from the treatments we provide for chronic pain and having their immune system boosted."

To which you replied:
"Evidence? Or is 'could' the operative word?"

I can understand how you feel these questions are important but there really is a much better way of understanding hypnotherapy which takes you beyond all of this - you just have to look at the underlying logic. You're basically asking me to teach you physiology if you want to know how the body heals and repairs itself during rest and sleep and the detrimental effects stress has on this system.

People could benefit from drinking a glass of their own urine every day.

Could they!? (If there is any truth to any of that then I'd much prefer to have somebody isolate the chemical(s) in urine that might have medicinal properties and synthesise them in pill form!)

It strikes me that you're thinking about hypnotherapy in the same way that a skeptic might think about homeopathy. There's no real underlying science (that I can fathom) in homeopathy. But that just isn't true of hypnotherapy - which is based upon, psychology, physiology and psychophysiology. There's nobody in the entire health care community who would doubt the palliative, remedial and curitive effects of relaxation. Neither would they doubt that stress is detrimental to the immune system or that much of the bodies repair work occurs during rest and sleep and that this can significantly benefit from reduced levels of stress.

Even the zone specific effects like breast enlargement and removing dermatological infections from one arm but not the other - and even treating warts, while they might seem like stunning tricks of magic, are almost certainly going to have a quite mundane and perfectly sound physiological explanation. HgH is almost certainly involved in all of the above. Now, all that has to be discovered is precisely how the nervous system and/or the hematological system is effected when you have a patient imagine warmth or tingling in a specifica area during hypnosis.

I do not know how worthy your accreditation might be in the UK. In the USA, accreditation for hypnotherapists appears to be a joke.

Well, a smaller country is more manageable than a larger country. Dodgy accreditors will be known to everyone quite quickly.

Basically, any new hypno school can apply to have it's diplomas accredited by the National Council For Education and then, after being in business for a minimum of 3 years and fulfilling certain criteria it can "go for gold" and apply to the British Accreditation Council. Their investigative process itself can last about 12 months (apparently) and a new school might not really be ready to apply to the BAC until it's about 10 years old. Overall, whenever the more established schools have applied to the BAC they've received quite respectable credit ratings at both Bachelors and Masters levels.

The reasons why many schools, new or old, might not choose to go down this route shouldn't be assumed to mean their course isn't as good. The above can be quite costly.

This thread was only started when YOU claimed that hypnosis is safe. (I took this to mean TOTALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY so) This is just not true.

How isn't it true? Hypnosis means rest. I'm not sure, but even you seem to have accepted that it isn't possible to "hypnotise" someone into believing highly detailed scenarios about satanic ritual sexual abuse, accepting instead that patient confabulation and therapist pressurisation is at work here in a socio-cognitive relationship. But, if it's the hypnosis itself that's unsafe then that means that relaxation itself is unsafe.

One of the first replies pointed this out and gave a positive link for the possible analgesic effect.

The first reply that mentioned the analgesic effects of hypnosis (and hundreds of surgical procedures have been performed with hypno-anaesthesia so it's not something to be skeptical about) pointed out that if something can effect change then it can't be entirely safe. Well..... okay, so it is very unhealthy for you not to get enough exercise. But that's bone idle lazyness - not rest! And while that that does remove the philosophical problem of hypnosis being a panacea that can only effect benefical change, does it really justify claims that hypnosis is unsafe?

Hypnotism might be safely applied to me and be completely safe -- and ineffectual. But you cannot say that no harm has been done. Hypnosis is the tool both in stage hypnotism and hypnotherapy. There has been harm done in both areas.

Correlation is not causation. The socio-cognitive model provides perfectly valid - and more believable (at least to me) - explanations as to how these problems have occurred.

I have actually witnessed physical injury to a member of the public occuring in a stage hypnotism act that was closed down at the venue that very night. I have referred you to cases where hypnotherapy has caused harm with FMS.

Occams razor. They all have socio-cognitive explanations. Anything else presupposed elements of hypnotic automatism - and that has never been shown to exist.

Do you agree that if some harm has occured, an activity is not SAFE?

I don't much like stage hypnosis but it's audience participation that's the risky factor. If you find that a few hips have been knocked out or muscles pulled during performances of the Rocky Horror Show would you say that dancing to the Time Warp is unsafe in the same way that you'd say stage hypnosis is unsafe?

If you do, then that's the end of the debate.

It's about the way that the issue is being framed that posing the problem here. You're saying the hypnosis itself is dangerous while I'm tryin to point out that it's what people do with each other in or out of hypnosis (and FMS usually doesn't involve hypnosis) that's the problem. Hypnosis is nothing more than a relaxed state of focussed attention.

Indeed, your over-reactive defensiveness is making me more suspicious. So, I suggest you put the kid gloves back on, and start thinking about what you are saying.

You're imbuing my posts with much more emotional force than is actually being intended in my writing. I'm certainly not stressed or annoyed as I type this. My comments about you not really being someone considering treatment might have been somewhat blunt but if any of it were really true wouldn't you have started the thread that way?

My point about all of that is simply that in your posts you've not only been trying to find a way to pin down what it might be about hypnosis that is dangerous but you've even claimed that it is unsafe in this post and at least one other. I'm just asking if you've considered the responsibility that being critical entails? I don't think it's an unfair question given that people could be put-off seeking treatment that might really benefit them. Everything points to socio-cognitive factors being the cause of all the risks and dangers you've mentioned and not the hypnosis itself.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

(P.S. Please, do not read me this time as "ranting". I'm not.)

 

[Ashles]

I actually think that's a really good reply Hypnopsi.

Polite, informative and intelligent.

Much as I like The Mighty Thor, I can't quite agree with the argument that if any activity has involved any harm ever then it is not completely sfae.
Although logically correct, I am trying to think of any activity that would be considered completely safe under this definition. I can't.

There may be unscrupulous and possibly even downright nasty practiotioners of hypnetherapy, but that doesn't make hypnotherapy bad itself. Merely the practitioner.

Also, you are clearly not imbuing hypnetherapy with any otherwordly qualities, merely explaining the benefit of relaxation, which is well documented in its beneficial properties, and hardly controversial.

Anything involving any form of psychological aspect has the potential to harm, but hypnotherapy on the whole seems relatively benign (compared with other widely practised psychological techniques, which also do great good, but have the potential for harm if badly administered).

 

[HypnoPsi]

I actually think that's a really good reply Hypnopsi. Polite, informative and intelligent.

Thank you.

There may be unscrupulous and possibly even downright nasty practiotioners of hypnotherapy, but that doesn't make hypnotherapy bad itself. Merely the practitioner.

Every field of inquiry, treatment and therapeutics has its bad-eggs sadly. I think one of the problems the psychotherapies suffered from in the last two decades is the fact that there were actually some some good-eggs who have became overly involved in the whole FMS thing as well. Either way, it really does seem to revolve around something specific between certain therapists and patients only and no single style of intervention or treatment appears to be to blame - particularly not hypnotherapy.

Also, you are clearly not imbuing hypnetherapy with any otherwordly qualities, merely explaining the benefit of relaxation, which is well documented in its beneficial properties, and hardly controversial.

I believe it's all very simple and straightforward. The whole thing is about stress and equilibrium and your body is always trying to maintain equlibrium (homeostasis) to keep itself in order anyway. We just give it a little help by, psychologicaly, reducing distress and increasing eustress and, physilogicaly, helping the patient relax. As for the psychophysiological aspect where we have the patient imagine warmth, tingling or a "white light fluid" pouring into an effected area, let's not forget that this works best (though not exclusively) in areas that have a lot of nerve endings and decent blood flow. There definatly has to be a reason for that - and either it's causing a chemical signal that's telling your body to "fix these tissues" or, frankly, it might as well be poppy the invisible pixie waiving her magic wand to provide breast jobs, remove warts and cure icthyosis.

Anything involving any form of psychological aspect has the potential to harm, but hypnotherapy on the whole seems relatively benign (compared with other widely practised psychological techniques, which also do great good, but have the potential for harm if badly administered).

When you have patient confabulation endorsed by a therapist (almost always quite innocently and for the best of reasons) you can run into problems. And, it can be fairly suggested, though not proven, that the patient might come to believe their own confabulations given such endorsement by an authority. Due caution and care must always be taken.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[HypnoPsi]

I actually think that's a really good reply Hypnopsi. Polite, informative and intelligent.

Thank you.

There may be unscrupulous and possibly even downright nasty practiotioners of hypnotherapy, but that doesn't make hypnotherapy bad itself. Merely the practitioner.

Every field of inquiry, treatment and therapeutics has its bad-eggs sadly. I think one of the problems the psychotherapies suffered from in the last two decades is the fact that there were actually some some good-eggs who entirely believed in recovered memories of sexual abuse as well. Either way, it really does seem to revolve around something specific between certain therapists and patients only and no single style of intervention or treatment appears to be to blame - particularly not hypnotherapy.

Also, you are clearly not imbuing hypnetherapy with any otherwordly qualities, merely explaining the benefit of relaxation, which is well documented in its beneficial properties, and hardly controversial.

I believe it's all very simple and straightforward. The whole thing is about stress and equilibrium and your body is always trying to maintain equlibrium (homeostasis) to keep itself in order anyway. We just give it a little help by, psychologicaly, reducing distress and increasing eustress and, physilogi

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Thank you.Every field of inquiry, treatment and therapeutics has its bad-eggs sadly. I think one of the problems the psychotherapies suffered from in the last two decades is the fact that there were actually some some good-eggs who have became overly involved in the whole FMS thing as well. Either way, it really does seem to revolve around something specific between certain therapists and patients only and no single style of intervention or treatment appears to be to blame - particularly not hypnotherapy.I believe it's all very simple and straightforward. The whole thing is about stress and equilibrium and your body is always trying to maintain equlibrium (homeostasis) to keep itself in order anyway. We just give it a little help by, psychologicaly, reducing distress and increasing eustress and, physilogicaly, helping the patient relax. As for the psychophysiological aspect where we have the patient imagine warmth, tingling or a "white light fluid" pouring into an effected area, let's not forget that this works best (though not exclusively) in areas that have a lot of nerve endings and decent blood flow. There definatly has to be a reason for that - and either it's causing a chemical signal that's telling your body to "fix these tissues" or, frankly, it might as well be poppy the invisible pixie waiving her magic wand to provide breast jobs, remove warts and cure icthyosis.When you have patient confabulation endorsed by a therapist (almost always quite innocently and for the best of reasons) you can run into problems. And, it can be fairly suggested, though not proven, that the patient might come to believe their own confabulations given such endorsement by an authority. Due caution and care must always be taken.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

Your last paragraph is exactly the caveat I was talking about. So, I think we are agreement -- and with Ashles. Hypnotherapy is mostly benign, but as with all therapies there are some dangers if they are practised badly, or abused by an unscrupulous practitioner. That's what I said in the first place!

BTW, the stage hypnosis I saw that went wrong happened in a children and adults 'holiday camp' club.

The hypnotist had a guy who was "very suggestible"?? The first instruction was for him to believe he was Robbie Williams. The hypnotist then asks what he would do with all that money. The guy replied: "I'd buy cars, women, and drugs." This did not go down well with most of the parents in the audience. And it should have alerted the hypnotist to the possibility that this guy might be OTT.

The next instruction was for the guy to be a bouncer/steward. The place is on fire. He must get everyone out.

Now, this apparently benign instruction had clearly not been thought through by the hypnotist.

This subject was a hulking brute of a guy and he jumped up shouting "Fire! Fire! Everybody's got to get out!" Then he ran to tables shouting to folk to get out. Then he ran in the two loos, and got a bit of a laugh there. But here, it all went wrong. He spotted an elderly lady sitting, and I suppose, 'helping the young and old' came to mind. But she had a walking stick propped beside her. He grabbed her stick then yanked her very forcefully out of her seat. She fell, and an ambulance had to be called. She had broken her hip.

Personally, I think the guy (the subject) was 'at it'. He had an excuse to put on show, and he did.

Good intentions sometimes lead to bad results.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Your last paragraph is exactly the caveat I was talking about. So, I think we are agreement -- and with Ashles. Hypnotherapy is mostly benign, but as with all therapies there are some dangers if they are practised badly, or abused by an unscrupulous practitioner. That's what I said in the first place!

At the risk of appearing pedantic I feel justified in pointing out that you started this thread with the statement "HypnoPsi says that hypnosis and hypnotherapy can do no harm.". I still say that. Most instances of alleged FMS have not involved hypnosis and how can we prove it even exists anyway? Until it is proven to exist it is not wholly unreasonable to propose that this is all confabulation and/or, in some instances, the recollection of real (corroborated) events. Furthermore the fact that this almost always involves professionals rather than 'lay' practitioners is an argument for hypnotherapists to be at the same level as dieticians/nutritionists and physiotherapists rather than excluding hypnosis to medical doctors.

BTW, the stage hypnosis I saw that went wrong happened in a children and adults 'holiday camp' club.

The hypnotist had a guy who was "very suggestible"?? The first instruction was for him to believe he was Robbie Williams. The hypnotist then asks what he would do with all that money. The guy replied: "I'd buy cars, women, and drugs." This did not go down well with most of the parents in the audience. And it should have alerted the hypnotist to the possibility that this guy might be OTT.

The next instruction was for the guy to be a bouncer/steward. The place is on fire. He must get everyone out.

Now, this apparently benign instruction had clearly not been thought through by the hypnotist.

This subject was a hulking brute of a guy and he jumped up shouting "Fire! Fire! Everybody's got to get out!" Then he ran to tables shouting to folk to get out. Then he ran in the two loos, and got a bit of a laugh there. But here, it all went wrong. He spotted an elderly lady sitting, and I suppose, 'helping the young and old' came to mind. But she had a walking stick propped beside her. He grabbed her stick then yanked her very forcefully out of her seat. She fell, and an ambulance had to be called. She had broken her hip.

Personally, I think the guy (the subject) was 'at it'. He had an excuse to put on show, and he did.

Good intentions sometimes lead to bad results.

You seem like a reasonable fellow. I can't prove a negative, but until someone demonstrates hypnotic control of another (automatism) I'm inclined to believe the subject was 'at it' as well. Consequently, the examples you give are very likely to be hazards of audience participation.

I would agree that anyone who includes audience participation in their entertainment shows should adequately warn people that accidents can happen.

All the best,
Stephen

 

[The Mighty Thor]

At the risk of appearing pedantic I feel justified in pointing out that you started this thread with the statement "HypnoPsi says that hypnosis and hypnotherapy can do no harm.". I still say that. Most instances of alleged FMS have not involved hypnosis and how can we prove it even exists anyway? Until it is proven to exist it is not wholly unreasonable to propose that this is all confabulation and/or, in some instances, the recollection of real (corroborated) events. Furthermore the fact that this almost always involves professionals rather than 'lay' practitioners is an argument for hypnotherapists to be at the same level as dieticians/nutritionists and physiotherapists rather than excluding hypnosis to medical doctors.You seem like a reasonable fellow. I can't prove a negative, but until someone demonstrates hypnotic control of another (automatism) I'm inclined to believe the subject was 'at it' as well. Consequently, the examples you give are very likely to be hazards of audience participation.

I would agree that anyone who includes audience participation in their entertainment shows should adequately warn people that accidents can happen.

All the best,
Stephen

OK, Stephen , I think I get your point on the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy.

However, I'm sure you agree that badly trained or unscrupulous practicioners could, indeed, do harm to their patients. I realise that this is the case with medical professionals, too. The difference is that someone could not take a short course or read a few books and then get a certificate accrediting them as a Doctor (M.D.)

I agree with you about automatism. But I would argue that 'most people' do think that hypnosis can achieve this result, and it is what they believe that is important.

BTW, have you any stats or studies on hypnosis helping people to quit smoking? I've often wondered if this was successful given the addictive nature of smoking.

If it does work (from your own experience) what then is the mechanism? Is the patient's 'self-will' being strengthened?

 

[HypnoPsi]

OK, Stephen , I think I get your point on the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy. However, I'm sure you agree that badly trained or unscrupulous practicioners could, indeed, do harm to their patients.

If the discussion has moved from saying that hypnosis/hypnotherapy can cause harm towards saying that an unscrupulous practitioner can misuse hypnosis/hypnotherapy to cause harm then I feel that I have an obligation to myself, my profession, my clients/patients and my colleagues to challenge this as well - if hypnosis/hypnotherapy is being singled out. People manipulate and emotionally harm each other constantly but there is nothing to my mind specifically about hypnosis that makes it in and of itself more or less risky in any specific way.

I realise that this is the case with medical professionals, too. The difference is that someone could not take a short course or read a few books and then get a certificate accrediting them as a Doctor (M.D.)

I'm forced to agree that the word "therapist" (psycho- or hypno-) gives the impression that someone should know what they're doing and have had some face-to-face tuition. (At the very least, even if hypnotherapy cannot directly cause "harm", people deserve value for money in terms of the "therapist" doing the right thing for the presenting issue(s), while accepting that health treatments cannot be "guaranteed".) And the title "Clinical Hypnotherapist" should definately mean that someone has advanced training and knowledge of the subject. I don't know about North America, but in the UK we seem to have made some good strides in this direction.

I agree with you about automatism. But I would argue that 'most people' do think that hypnosis can achieve this result, and it is what they believe that is important.

Well, of course. Seeing yourself as the as the kind of "individual" that drinks pepsi instead of coke, uses a Mac instead of a PC or is a non-smoker might all follow very, very similar underlying psychological logic - but faith and belief in the hypnotherapist is definately going to influence this.

The question I have to ask is if problems like alleged cases of FMS are better managed (and they are problems that have to be managed in the best way possible) by excluding hypntherapy to, for example, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists or by over-exposing it to the extent that everyone sees it as just the same as meditation and/or relaxation exercises? I feel there are compelling reasons for taking the latter appraoch. (All of which have been outlined by myself in the course of this this discussion.)

BTW, have you any stats or studies on hypnosis helping people to quit smoking? I've often wondered if this was successful given the addictive nature of smoking.

The most cited report highlighting the success rate of hypnotherapy in smoking cessation comes from New Scientist. You can access it here:http://www.stop-smoking-in-1-hour.com/NewScientistSmokingarticle.txt

I also found the following when searching New Scientist. Thought you might find it interesting:http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999577

If it does work (from your own experience) what then is the mechanism? Is the patient's 'self-will' being strengthened?

The psychological explanation I provided above is a big part of the answer and probably the best way to explain things in (laymans) terms of strengthening "self-will". But we also have to bear in mind that nicotine provides addicts with an 'instant fix' stress reducer within 5-10 seconds of lighting-up. Hypnotherapy or self-hypnosis, as an alternate, more potent and considerably healthier method of stress reduction almost certainly has a significant role alongside the psychological intervention in making hypnotherapy so successfull in helping people to stop smoking.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen