Lay Hypnosis

[Merlin]

An interesting article on 'Lay Hypnotists'

http://www.omnipublications.com/APA.htm

[skip]

Thanks Merlin,

And as chilling as it is to hear the details of a concerted effort to destroy many peoples livelyhood, along with, tens of thousands of others source of help, all for the sake of money, disguised as concen, this has been going on for a long time, and thus far the propaganda the medical "professionals", hasnt been wholly successful.

skip

[EC]

There you go talking about my home State.

Actually Skip this group didn't disguise their intent very well, and they were correct in their assumption that it might not be a battle they could win. They did manage to push "hypnosis" into Psychologist act, but that's it. Say's Psychologist can practice hypnosis, which we already knew, but it doesn't prohibit anyone else. Many feel this is a small group of self serving malcontents ......

EC

[Terry (existing)]

I shall inform our members of this, and advise those who have membership to cancel same..... I know one very good friend who is a member, so there might be more, and we can hit them on the pocket book instead of arguing.....

[EC]

Terry,

I agree Wholeheartely about the pocketbook bit,,,

Once upon a time I considered joining this group, but then I learned the real intent was self serving to the harm of others essentially.

EC

[skip]

To me the really sad part of this, is that there are both lay and professional hypnotists that arent worth squat. Many psychologists whom they include in their fold, only have 4- 6 hours of hypnosis instruction.

And something ought be done about them!

Instead this group, wants to be as exclusionary as possible. Erickson founded this outfit and I imagine he is rolling over in his grave at what these people have done with it.

They could be inclusory, and get something constructive done, for both themselves and the field as a whole. Wouldnt that be novel!

Instead they want to do the same smear campaign the AMA did with chiropractors and they want the chiropractors to aid them in it.

If they were better Ericksonian hypnotists they would be doing a much better job, IMO.

[Don]

Skip, you are exactly right. Those of us who remember the "Satanic Panic" of a few years ago, which evolved into False Memory Syndrome, may also note that in most of the cases, the problems were caused by "professionals" (nurses, psychological professionals with only a Masters degree, etc.) who didn't know what they were doing. I would add that in many cases these people needed NO instruction in hypnosis whatsoever to ply their trade.

In the early 1900s, there were also Lay Psychoanalysts. This was eventually shot down by Freud and his compatriots who wanted to make sure that Psychanalysis was a lucrative profession that only the wealthy could affort.

Another point is that the many medical professionals have a completely different paradigm (you broke--me fix) than hypnotherapists (with your current knowledge and skills you are perfect), so they are also defending their turf against interlopers--not to mention that hypnotherapists generally have much faster results than psychiatry (which today primarily focuses on dispensing drugs) and psychology.

[Neurotic1]

An interesting article indeed. As a person with medical qualifications, I had much successful experience with hypnosis before I decided that I ought to be as qualified in hypnotherapy as professionals dubbed 'lay hypnotists'. Previous to my training, I had much experience in clinical psychology but my experiences since then,whislt developing my hypnotherapy experience, have taught me a great deal and it has been a steep learning curve. Indeed, it is only since I have looked at what I had been doing with hypnosis that I have really begun to question it...

It is true that medical professionals in many areas can practice hypnotherapy without further qualification. This, I think is irresponsible legislation. Such arguments by medical professionals about the abilities of 'lay hypnotists' are surely a double-edged sword. It is as irresponisble for a medical professional with no experience in hypnosis to be allowed to attempt hypnotherapy, believing they know enough without further training or qualification, as it is for a hypnotherapist without medical qualification to attempt to diagnose and treat medical disorders. I can already feel that statement getting people's backs up because it is a generalisation. I do not think it holds true for all situations.

Perhaps what is required is hypnotherapy specialists; trained professionals with specialist training and experience in hypnotherapy. There ought to be scope for sub-specialists or mono-specialists who have particular skills or interests in an area of hypnotherapy. Of course we know this situation already exists - and exists it mainly in the form on non-medically trained 'lay hypnotists' who, more often than not, have more knowledge and experience of hypnotherapy's use in certain areas.. Does that alone make them an expert in those areas just because they treat them with hypnosis? I don't know.

It is the responsibility of a practitioner of any form of therapy - from medicine to hypnotherapy, to have the knowledge and competence in all areas within which they practise. Perhaps the medics are a little paranoid because there is definitely overlap between medicine and hypnosis in that certain medical conditions can be treated by hypnotherapy. This does not excuse a xenophobic approach though does it.

I think perhaps cooperation is called for between all those who are involved to continue to expand and develop the hypnotherapy profession. I cannot see good reason for conflict - it is not beneficial. Hypnotherapy ought to be a profession in its own right - indeed it is. I think that practitioners ought to have sufficient qualification to treat what they do. For future practitioners, that might mean input from both medical experts and hypnosis experts - sufficient to say that is is ridiculous to suggest that to specialise in hypnosis one ought to have a full medical degree. What nonsense. If one is, however, going to treat medical conditions, one ought to be trained to a competent understanding of those medical conditions and that would most likely require the input of medical professionals, as training in hypnotherapy requires the input of experts in the field of hypnotherapy. Of course, there ought to be a system to recognise those hypnotherapists who have bothered to educate themselves sufficiently in the medical conditions they treat already. This all sounds an awful lot like more regulation doesn't it. Maybe it is. Maybe that is a good thing but I am aware it can go too far...

[skip]

Excellent points and a resoned response.

There are quite a number of people who could take a lesson from this.

skip

[EC]

>> Excellent points and a reasoned response, <<

I agree

>> Indeed, it is only since I have looked at what I had been doing with hypnosis that I have really begun to question it... <<

Welcome to the ranks then.....

EC

[Shlomo_NLP]

hmmm... let's hypnotize them and make 'em our private promoters... :-)

guys, there will always be people who try to hurt your success. Even Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Tony Robbins and others had and have it.

That's the way it works.

[betlamed]

It's basic group dynamics. The doctors will try to scare witches, alternative healers, and charlatans away from healing other people because they want to reclaim the competence and the money for themselves. Every board of professionists will tend to do so. Just take a look at what some of the people around here have to say. Different people, less power, same strategy.

My answer is: Let the knowledge be known. Make everybody know about hypnosis. The potential AND the dangers. People will make their own experiences, and yes, harm will inevitably be done - but over time, they will learn how to distinguish between the "lay" neighbour who has always helped them in exchange for a foot massage and a good meal, and the grande "hypnotherapist" with the nifty abbrev.s to their name, who hasn't helped them at all but took 10.000 EUR because he "had to invest so much to earn the necessary skills". People will LEARN what's bad about stage hypnosis, and whether they are prepared to risk an abreaction when they do a little "erotic hypnosis". It's not as if that knowledge were impossible to gain, you know.

As far as knowledge is a product, there is an important difference between knowledge and any other product: Knowledge doesn't wear off over time.

bl

[EC]

>> Another point is that the many medical professionals have a completely different paradigm (you broke--me fix) <<


Correction; You might be Broke - WE find out - WE fix......

EC

[Don]

LOL!
You're right, EC. I stand corrected.

However, I would add something to that. What every person is trained in influences the way they offer a treatment. If a person with a specific desire for a behavioral change comes to a psychiatrist, the psychiatrist will medicate them. A Jungian psychologist would treat them one way and a gestalt therapist another way. A hypnotist would treat them one way, an Ericksonian hypnotist another way, and an NLP practitioner yet another way. And they'll all say that their modality is the best.

When all you have is a screwdriver, all problems look like screws.

[Tudor]

Don

"When all you have is a screwdriver, all problems look like screws."

Thank you very much for those words.
Those I will remember and use.
Peter Norling

[Don]

I can't claim authorship, but I don't know who invented it. I believe the original was actually "When all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails."

[skip]

When all problems are nails, all you need is a hammer.

[parsa]

When you only have a hammer. Just look for the nails.