See my post at the Omni Hypnosis Training Center Open Blog for a link to the article on hypnotists facing spell of scrutiny which was recently posted to the Omnigrads email discussion list for graduates of the various Omni Hypnosis Training Center certification programs (as anyone who knows me or who has read even a fraction of my writings, I highly reccomend Gerald Kein, his teaching, and his training materials . . . he is one of the handful of folks I would consider a true master of hypnosis and the hypnotic arts).

As the issues related to this case and the ramifications it is having for the lay hypnosis community in general, it is worth a looksee here in the "open forum" blog for further discussion that is unmoderated so please feel free to comment here and on the Omni blog (better yet, comment at both places).

I know a number of folks will disagree with me – and that’s okay, dialog is worthwhile – but I really believe that the apparent National Guild of Hypnotists strategy as implied in this article of using this case as a call for further regulation or licensing of hypnotists is not the strongest strategy and that its repercussions may not be in the best interests of the lay hypnosis community at large.

Presumably, the NGH is basing the strategy on the hope that when the regulations come that NGH hypnotist will then be in the category of those who will be approved hypnotists. This may not entirely be the case as the licensed professionals can very easily supplant the work by adding in further riders.

I would suggest a better strategy in the longterm would be to distance what we do from what this particular person did and give the numbers regarding doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists in terms of sexual misconduct with the rider that there are always isolated cases but that these cases don’t necessarily mean that all hypnotists should be condemned or need regulation just as not all psychologists should be condemned by the actions of the few who have sexual affairs with their clients (psychologists would be the most demonstrable examples of this as there are a number of good books already on the shelves that examine sexual misconduct within the profession – The Naked Therapist, Naked on the Couch, etc. – and a recent study showed an unusually high number of pscyhology teachers have affairs with their students and that these numbers are higher among psychology schools where students and teachers form analyst-analsyand relationships).

I know this is whole thing is being beaten to death on a number of the online discussion forums, but . . . really . . . this is ONE guy who abused his position. We shouldn’t need to rush out and regulate or restrict an entire professon merely because of this one guy’s actions. Most hypnotists do NOT act this way. They don’t abuse the therapeutic relationship and for those who do, there are already existing laws that can regulate that behavior. This case demonstrated some loopholes in the laws local to where the events occured but that’s it. However, that doesn’t mean more general or global restrictions are needed. In some states he would have been well out of his allowed scope of practice just by treating someone for childhood sexual abuse and in others that would have been okay. Even if the consensual sex is legal (he contended that he was being prosecuted for violating the laws governing conduct of "therapists" and since hypnotists were not licensed those did not apply, which may or may not be true but the real crux of the case was that he videotaped the ladies without their knowledge in his office while having sex and while they were in the toilets and that’s just not legal anywhere . . . there are already laws to govern his specific crimes and for the general conduct, it is a simple matter to amend existing conduct laws that proscribe client-therapist sex to include hypnotists, licensed and unlisenced).

While it is a good deal for an organization to be the "official" organization as far as the law is concerned, there is no good reason why the NGH should be approved and another school with similar or higher standards would not be. I would be wary of setting ourselves up as self-seving. The article isn’t clear what the actual strategy is though.

However, if the approach is to create basic standards of conduct that lay hypnotists should follow . . . such as the "don’t sleep with your client" rule that all of the other professions follow, then that seems a worthwhile goal. However, such a goal does not require a licensing or certification system of who can or cannot do hypnosis. It would merely be a simple amendment to already existing regulations regarding scope of practice and the like. Personally, I would suggest that working at loosening up the more restrictive states would be a more productive goal than tightening restrictions in places that are fairly friendly to our profession.

In my opinion.

All the best,
Brian