More discussion on . . . Hypnotic Memory Erasure . . .. . . Artificial Repression . . . No Eternal Sunshine, No Spotless Mind . . . this time the discussion rolls around to the nature of freedom of choice, therapeutic approach, and a client’s right of choice.

The primary disagreement to my position that a hypnotist should not be performing invasive processes like artificial repression even if the client does request them in that they are less safe and very much less effective to other more proactive approaches available. One correspondent says he disagrees with my position in that the individual client comes to the hypnotist for a reason and if the reason is to forget a memory, that is their decision and the hypnotist should respect it.

I disagree. A client comes in with a presenting symptom, yes, but the therapist needs to decide the appropriate approach to dealing with that symptom based upon experience and knowledge. If a client comes in with a request for a “procedure” that we know will not be as effective as others, it is our responsibility to let them know. Yes, we should listen to the client’s desires and cater to their needs but simple memory loss or artificial repression should not be treated as a “I’m just giving the client what they want” excuse.

If a client comes in with a request to erase painful memories then it is a cop out to do the work and send them on their way with the justification only that we were fulfilling the client’s wishes. The presenting issue is NOT the memories, it is the emotions associated with those memories. There are far more effective and potentially less damaging methods to helping a person deal with that emotional energy associated with the memories. As hypnotists, we should know what those methods are and how to use them competently and fully.

To say we have to do what the client wants is only part of the deal . . . we also have to achieve results that are most beneficial to the client without leaving potential problems in the air. Just give ’em exactly what they ask for doesn’t work in the case of the young man who requested on this group that someone hypnotize him so he would have what he called the courage to commit suicide and neither does it work here. Far better as a professional and at the therapeutic level to actually help the person deal with these issues so they can face them, remove the energy trapped by association with these memories, and then move on with their lives in a happy healthy way.

The objection to this position goes further with the assertion that we all forget various events in life and that painful events are just another set of memories that are simply history from the past interfering with the present.

However, I would contend that the interference is caused by trapped energy, powerful negative emotions associated with the memories. As with any repressed negative memory, that energy is still active, working its way in the background causing very potentially longterm negative effects upon the psyche. To repress painful memories does NOT release the pain, it merely puts it into a pressure cooker where it will eventually explode without appropriate expression and release.

The contra side asserts that whatever function the memory is serving or need it is satisfying is also causing a problem in that it inhibits the individual’s ability to move on with their life.

My point is that artificial repression does not help an individual move on with their life, it allows them to pretend things are all okay and never happened in the short term but the energy is still there.

Yes, we do forget things from our past, yes, we do move on with our lives but repression is not a mechanism for that.

While it is possible to artificially repress memories, it is not a helpful or therapeutically sound approach.

The contrary argument that if an individual chooses to have someone, a hypnotist, assist in having suggestions to the subconscious for a memory to be forgotten, that is their right.

Of course, the client has the right to request such a process . . . however, a therapist who chooses that easy short-term path over sounder more effective methods that will hold for the long-term, truly freeing the individual from the negative associated energy and allowing them to really get on with their life, then that therapist is using acting irresponsibly . . . IN MY OPINION, based upon my experience and knowledge of the subject. Artificial repression is not beneficial in the long-term.

When asked about the client’s right of choice, I would answer that choice is still there. Medical patients have choice in treatment as well but their physicians are required to propose options that will do the most good and the least harm. Just as you don’t amputate an arm to deal with a cyst, you don’t repress memories to deal with their associated emotions. A doctor who performs such an amputation is being irresponsible and saying “that’s what the client asked for because the arm hurt so much” isn’t going to cut the mustard. The client doesn’t UNDERSTAND the nature of the problem. It is up to the doctor to assure them that while the arm seems to hurt for now, it will be fine and so will the patient once we get that cyst under control. So to with the negative emotions associated with the troublesome memories. It isn’t the memory that’s the problem, it’s the associated emotions or lack of resources in dealing with them.

Our correspondent tells me that while psychotherapists may have what he describes as an agenda toward their patients, hypnotists should have only one motive and that is to assist and facilitate in the goals relating to issues and problems for their clients.

Yes . . . but . . . not quite. All hypnotists should have an agenda and that agenda should be to assist the client in the best possible way without opening up new cans of worms in the process. This really has nothing to do with the classic combat between psychologists and lay hypnotists with other counseling professionals over turf or market share.

The supposition that the remembrance of the problems would not manifest in other ways because the problem is forgotten with the memory that has been artificially repressed is specious.

Yes, the conscious awareness of the remembrance would not be there . . . but the memory is not satisfied, the emotional energy will be driven underground. Just as in traumatic repression, the energy becomes trapped and as the conscious does not have access to ways to deal with it, it festers or develops long-term potential for negative damage to the psyche. Artificial repression is NOT the same as natural forgetting. It is an invasive process fraught with difficulties in part because it is most likely associated with negative and active emotional energy. These are not neutral, energyless, memories we’re discussing, they are full of active energy waiting to be expressed or released, to turn them underground into the subconscious without properly releasing them is inappropriate therapy . . . regardless of what the client believe they want in the intake.

One idea presented in the discussion is that the individual wants to grow and that my opposition to this particular process prohibits that growth and is based merely upon indoctrination from psychologist constructs which somehow destroy the exercise of free will.

This may be just a tad simplistic and unfair. It has nothing to do with the so-called battle between psychologists and hypnotists. Just because the client asks for a potentially harmful process does not make it okay to give it to them. Just because a client asks for a process that does not do the full job as well as other techniques does not make it a good idea to give it to them.

Clients have the right of free will to choose from the best options their therapist can offer them, but the therapist has an obligation to make certain that the options presented are the best possible avenues for success. If a client chooses to exercise free will and not accept any of the therapist’s options, then the therapist would be acting irresponsibly to offer a process that will not work effectively or which can cause problems in the long term.

If the therapist should do whatever the client asks, as you seem to be arguing, then when someone asks me to give them the “courage” to commit suicide then I should do so rather than use an approach that deals with pain, sorrow, and depression and helps the person move on with their life rather than escaping it. Or, if someone asks me to “erase” all of their male gender memories and to give them suggestions that help them believe they were born a woman and allow them to have a fully functional womb so they can have babies, then I should go ahead and use suggestive processes so they’ll believe that’s the case despite what should be an overwhelmingly contrary understanding of basic biology. Or, if someone asks to be hypnotically punished for imagined misdeeds by being given a suggestion for incontinence and amnesia of the suggestion then I should do so. These are all real cases. While I refused each of these requests and either sent the client on their way or used other more longterm positive approaches which dealt with the negativity and helped the client find release, you seem to be saying that I was wrong . . . “the customer is always right” and “give the customer what he asks for” are not always true . . . you have to also consider what is beneath the request and get to what they really need. If you can’t do that, then don’t do the work.

Using artificial repression could be like selling your customer a “cool car” that looks fast but actually has sand in the gas tank and will break down after a short time, leaving the client stranded in the middle of nowhere with no one to help.

While I certainly agree that artificial repression (it is NOT really erasure) may be helpful to SOME people, but I would strongly suggest that for others the potential long term negative effects do not outweigh the short-term benefit. I believe quite powerfully that there are other more effective solutions available with less potential negative effect. The artificial repression seems like a quick fix but to me it’s more like fixing a broken water faucet with scotch tape, sooner or later something is probably going to start leaking again.

In my rather verbose opinion.

All the best,
Brian