Lay vs Pro
Excerpts from: http://www.apmha.com/page9.htm
lay hypnotists are generally trained by one of dozens of lay hypnosis training institutes and/or organizations, many of which also offer some form of credentialing in hypnosis and/or hypnotherapy. Among the larger (or at least more vocal) lay hypnosis organizations are the National Guild of Hypnotists (NGH), the American Board of Hypnotherapy (ABH), and the American Council of Hypnotist Examiners (ACHE). One of the earliest organizations, the Association to Advance Ethical Hypnosis (AAEH) appears to be inactive and/or no longer exists, with many of its former leaders now actively involved with NGH or other similar organizations.
The official position held by ASCH, the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (SCEH), and APA Division 30 is that lay hypnosis and the training of lay hypnotists are unethical. The ASCH By-Laws and Ethics Code are clear and specific: hypnosis is a treatment modality--not a treatment in and of itself--that should be strictly limited to qualified practitioners of the healing arts. Of course, ASCH has over the years modified its view of who is "qualified."
Certainly, lay hypnotists have (wrongly, according to organized clinical hypnosis) cut into practices (and incomes) of clinical hypnotists.
Clinical hypnosis is predicated on rigorous scientific investigation. SCEH and ASCH distinguish between "soft science" (e.g., case studies, non-experimental research) and "hard science" (e.g., quasi- and "true" experimental research), and shares the bias of all formal sciences that the latter is more valid than the former. Lay hypnosis does not make this distinction. There is a very clear preponderance of uncontrolled anecdotal studies in the lay hypnosis articles I have read. In fact, "hard" research is almost entirely missing from this literature, and in some cases is even denigrated. The exception (in my limited reading) has been when hard research appears to support the aims and purposes of lay hypnosis (e.g., I found several references to NIH's recent positive review of hypnosis as a valuable adjunct to medical treatment of cancer and pain), as a distinct profession.
A primary issue here involves two terms whose presence in a licensing law are central to the health professional's right to independent (i.e., medically unsupervised) practice: diagnosis and treatment. Since treatment (we have been taught) ensues from diagnosis, to be independent a professional must be legally authorized to perform both.
During its early battles for licensure, organized psychology successfully pointed to organized medicine's inability to prove that patients were being harmed by psychologists who in fact were already practicing independently (or under very nominal medical supervision). Organized counseling has made the same argument when faced with opposition to counselor licensure from state psychology associations. Now we are hearing the same argument being espoused by organized clinical hypnosis in our efforts to shut down lay hypnotists. It is important to note here that anecdotal evidence of harm has been found by most state legislatures to be inadequate as an argument against licensure. For the same reason, state attorneys have been hesitant to prosecute uncredentialed/unlicensed mental health practitioners on the sole basis of practicing a healing art without a license. Clearly, one hears far more complaints against physicians and psychologists than lay hypnotists.
Here I find that the clinical hypnosis community engages in some double-talk. On the one hand, we state that clinical hypnosis is no more dangerous than any other form of therapeutic conversation; on the other hand, we say it is too dangerous to allow individuals without graduate-level training to learn and utilize it. Yet logically, if hypnosis is no more dangerous than other forms of therapeutic conversation, then we should be able and willing to teach it to the same populations we teach counseling to including, for example, addictions counselors, B.A.-level mental health workers, and peer counselors--in other words, "lay" people.
lay hypnotists are generally trained by one of dozens of lay hypnosis training institutes and/or organizations, many of which also offer some form of credentialing in hypnosis and/or hypnotherapy. Among the larger (or at least more vocal) lay hypnosis organizations are the National Guild of Hypnotists (NGH), the American Board of Hypnotherapy (ABH), and the American Council of Hypnotist Examiners (ACHE). One of the earliest organizations, the Association to Advance Ethical Hypnosis (AAEH) appears to be inactive and/or no longer exists, with many of its former leaders now actively involved with NGH or other similar organizations.
The official position held by ASCH, the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (SCEH), and APA Division 30 is that lay hypnosis and the training of lay hypnotists are unethical. The ASCH By-Laws and Ethics Code are clear and specific: hypnosis is a treatment modality--not a treatment in and of itself--that should be strictly limited to qualified practitioners of the healing arts. Of course, ASCH has over the years modified its view of who is "qualified."
Certainly, lay hypnotists have (wrongly, according to organized clinical hypnosis) cut into practices (and incomes) of clinical hypnotists.
Clinical hypnosis is predicated on rigorous scientific investigation. SCEH and ASCH distinguish between "soft science" (e.g., case studies, non-experimental research) and "hard science" (e.g., quasi- and "true" experimental research), and shares the bias of all formal sciences that the latter is more valid than the former. Lay hypnosis does not make this distinction. There is a very clear preponderance of uncontrolled anecdotal studies in the lay hypnosis articles I have read. In fact, "hard" research is almost entirely missing from this literature, and in some cases is even denigrated. The exception (in my limited reading) has been when hard research appears to support the aims and purposes of lay hypnosis (e.g., I found several references to NIH's recent positive review of hypnosis as a valuable adjunct to medical treatment of cancer and pain), as a distinct profession.
A primary issue here involves two terms whose presence in a licensing law are central to the health professional's right to independent (i.e., medically unsupervised) practice: diagnosis and treatment. Since treatment (we have been taught) ensues from diagnosis, to be independent a professional must be legally authorized to perform both.
During its early battles for licensure, organized psychology successfully pointed to organized medicine's inability to prove that patients were being harmed by psychologists who in fact were already practicing independently (or under very nominal medical supervision). Organized counseling has made the same argument when faced with opposition to counselor licensure from state psychology associations. Now we are hearing the same argument being espoused by organized clinical hypnosis in our efforts to shut down lay hypnotists. It is important to note here that anecdotal evidence of harm has been found by most state legislatures to be inadequate as an argument against licensure. For the same reason, state attorneys have been hesitant to prosecute uncredentialed/unlicensed mental health practitioners on the sole basis of practicing a healing art without a license. Clearly, one hears far more complaints against physicians and psychologists than lay hypnotists.
Here I find that the clinical hypnosis community engages in some double-talk. On the one hand, we state that clinical hypnosis is no more dangerous than any other form of therapeutic conversation; on the other hand, we say it is too dangerous to allow individuals without graduate-level training to learn and utilize it. Yet logically, if hypnosis is no more dangerous than other forms of therapeutic conversation, then we should be able and willing to teach it to the same populations we teach counseling to including, for example, addictions counselors, B.A.-level mental health workers, and peer counselors--in other words, "lay" people.
Comments