3. SPIEGEL REBUTS NEGATIVE STATEMENT BY SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENT HYPNOSIS: Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis Resolution adopted October, 1978: A The society for clinical and experimental hypnosis Views with alarm the tendency for police officers with Minimal training in hypnosis and without a broad Professional background in the healing arts employing Hypnosis to presumably facilitate recall of witnesses or Victims. The Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis Views it as unethical to train lay individuals in the Use of hypnosis, to collaborate with laymen in the use Of hypnosis, or to serve as a consultant for laymen Who are utilizing hypnosis.

4. REBUTTAL TO THOSE WHO WOULD LIMIT THE USE OF HYPNOSIS: WHITNEY HIBBARD & RAYMOND WORRING: FORENSIC HYPNOSIS: CHARLES C THOMAS: SPRINGFIELD, IL: 1981
MYTH: The Executive Council of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis unanimously approved a resolution opposing the use of hypnosis by police officers in October of 1978, which said in part, "police officers usually have strong views as to who is likely to be guilty of a crime and may easily inadvertently bias the hypnotized subject's memories even without themselves being aware of their actions." Although this admittedly is a possibility, concern for it happening is unfounded for the following reasons:
A. POLICE OFFICERS USUALLY DO NOT HAVE STRONG VIEWS AS TO WHO IS LIKELY TO BE GUILTY OF A CRIME. In most cases in which hypnosis is used, the primary investigators have little or no evidence from which to draw conclusions. This is precisely the reason why hypnosis is used.
B. THE HYPNO-INVESTIGATOR IS NEVER THE PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR and is therefore less likely to have a biased interest in the case.
C. THE HYPNO-INVESTIGATOR TAKES APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF SUGGESTING ANSWERS TO THE HYPNOTIZED VICTIM OR WITNESS. He is trained in proper questioning, and his techniques can be reviewed on the tape made of the session.
D. THE MERE FACT THAT ALL HYPNO-INDUCED EVIDENCE IS CORROBORATED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE BEFORE ARREST OR SEARCH WARRANTS ARE OBTAINED NEGATES THE CONCERN OF RELYING ON UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION.
E. ALL HYPNOSIS SESSIONS ARE AUDIO AND/OR VIDEOTAPED FOR THE EXPLICIT (15)
PURPOSE OF RENDERING THE SESSIONS EXAMINABLE BY A PARTY-OPPONENT. Shoud the issue of hypnosis be raised, with psychological trauma, among the tapes can be scrutinized for any those qualified to practice hypnosis.
F. THE MEMORIES OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES ARE EASILY INADVERTENTLY BIASED WITHOUT HYPNOSIS, SO THERE IS NO REASON TO SINGLE OUT AND INDICT HYPNOSIS
MYTH: Hypnosis should not be used by law enforcement officers because they are not trained to handle the repressed emotional trauma that they are likely to uncover. This myth was started and is still propagated by a small group of psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, and dentists who argue that hypnosis should only be employed by these select professions within the area of their expertise. If this position is examined closely it becomes obvious that it is not only absurd but even negates itself. First of all, as was discussed above, forensic hypnosis does not fall within the expertise of any of the above professions. Secondly, the implicit assumption is that hypnosis is inherently or potentially dangerous and that these professionals, by virtue of their training, are the only ones competent to deal with psychological and emotional problems that it may uncover. The alleged dangers of hypnosis are debunked in the next myth to be discussed, and as far as the competence issue, it should be obvious that nonpsychiatric physicians and dentists have no more training than police officers in dealing with human problems. In actuality, police officers have abundant practical experience in dealing with every type of human problem and trauma. Granted, psychologists and psychiatrists are professionally trained to deal with such problems (although training in any discipline, including hypnosis, is no guarantee of competence), but it is quite odd that they would include their medical and dental brothers, who are not trained to deal with psychological trauma, among those qualified to practice hypnosis.
The myth assumes that repressed emotional traumas are inadvertently underpowered under hypnosis. To fairly examine this issue, one must look at the source - psychologist and psychiatrists. These professionals, in citing the triggering of repressed traumatic psychological or emotional problems, are ignoring several variables:
A. PSYCHOTHERAPISTS TREAT SICK PEOPLE WHO COME TO THEM WITH THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF WORKING THROUGH PERSONAL PROBLEMS.
B. ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF PSYCHOTHERAPY IS TO UNCOVER AND ELICIT REPRESSED TRAUMATIC PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL INCIDENCES.
C. SPONTANEOUS OUTBURSTS IN NONTHERAPEUTIC SETTINGS ARE EXTREMELY RARE. Dentists and physicians should ask themselves how many times their hypnotized patients have spontaneously discharged a repressed trauma. You would be hard pressed to find a single one.
D. HYPNO-INVESTIGATORS WILL BY AND LARGE BE HYPNOTIZING NORMAL ADULTS IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THE OBJECTIVES, PURPOSE, AND LIMITS OF THE HYPNOSIS SESSION ARE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. In other words, the subjects are motivated volunteer victims and witnesses who wish to enhance their memory to help with the case; they are not there to undergo psychotherapy.
E. THE TIME SPAN BETWEEN THE ACTUAL CRIME EVENT AND THE HYPNOSIS WILL IN MOST CASES BE ONLY A MATTER OF DAYS OR WEEKS, HENCE GREATLY REDUCING THE INADVERTENT TRIGGERING OF PAST TRAUMA. Most repressed psychological or emotional traumas stem from early life experiences, so, by merely regressing a victim or witness back only a few days or weeks, the possibility of stumbling across such an (16) experience is logically negated. As a safety precaution, however, specific instructions can be given to the subject before the regression to keep this from happening.
F. WHEN DEALING WITH ACTUAL TRAUMATIZED CRIME VICTIMS OR WITNESSES, DISSOCIATIVE TECHNIQUES ARE USED TO SEPARATE THE SCENE FROM THE TRAUMA SO THE SUBJECT DOES NOT HAVE TO RELIVE IT.
G. THE BENEFITS TO THE INVESTIGATION THROUGH NEW INFORMATION, AS WELL AS THE BENEFITS EXPERIENCED BY THE TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS THROUGH PROPER SUGGESTIONS, ARE OFTEN OVERLOOKED BY CRITICS. Most rape victims, for example, report feeling much better afterwards. In psychological terms, the experience is usually cathartic or therapeutic in and of itself.
H. IN THE AUTHORS' EXPERIENCE AND THAT OF THE L.A.P.D. HYPNOSIS UNIT, WHICH HAS DONE OVER 460 CASE-RELATED SESSIONS, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE OF REPRESSED TRAUMATIC OUTBURSTS OR POSTHYPNOTIC PROBLEMS. In fact, of 180 hypnotized victims and witnesses questioned, 95 percent felt emotional relief after the hypnosis.
Another assumption in this myth is that police officers, by virtue of their lack of medical or psychological training, are not qualified to handle hypnosis. This has been clearly demonstrated a fallacy by the several thousand practicing hypno-investigators in this countrv. Granted, a police officer's training may not be in the classroom, but his training comes from direct experience from years of daily contact with people and their problems. From the authors' experience, we have found those police officers whom we have trained to be older, more mature and stable, much less naive, more conservative, practical, capable, and sensitive, and profoundly more enthusiastic and interested in the subject than hypnosis classes of graduate students in clinical psychology in doctoral programs.
MYTH: Hypnosis is potentially dangerous. This myth is closely related to one discussed above, the implication being that since it is potentially dangerous, anyone not trained in psychology or psychiatry should not be using it. Andre Weitzenhoffer, Ph.D., who has had many years of research and clinical practice and who is recognized as one of the leading experts on hypnosis, concludes that "hypnosis per se is no more dangerous than natural sleep. There is no evidence that hypnosis in itself weakens the will, damages the nervous system, or in any other way adversely affects the mental and physical wellbeing of individuals. The danger lies in its misuse," especially "in the mismanagement of the hypnotic subject before, after and, particularly, during hypnosis." Likewise, Lewis Wolberg, M.D., another eminent hypnotherapist, researcher, and author, states, "In competent hands hypnosis has no harmful effects, but where it is utilized to evoke nonsensical and dramatic phenomena by showmen and parlor pranksters, and where symptom removal is attempted without some understanding of the dynamics of the patient's illness, neurotic persons may be influenced adversely." It would be hoped that hypno-investigators will be adequately and competently trained and that they will under no circumstance practice symptom removal or other forms of therapy, nor engage in nonprofessional uses of hypnosis outside of their respective departments.
Wolberg continues to say that he has "induced trances in patients and volunteer subjects virtually hundreds of times, and not in a single instance has any patient become overly dependent on me or has become addicted to the trance state. There is no justification (17) for the fear that a hypnotic subject will remain under the influence of the operator who will be able to wield a Svengali-like power over him." William Kroger, M.D., another well respected authority on hypnosis and hypnotherapy, quotes Platonov to summarize his views regarding the dangers of hypnosis: "Platonov, an associate of Pavlov, who has used hypnosis for over 50 years in over 50,000 cases, reports as follows in one of the most remarkable books written on hypnosis."
We have never observed any harmful influence on the patient which could be ascribed to the method of hypnosuggestive therapy, presumably leading to the development of an "unstable personality," "slavish subordination," weakening of the will, increase in suggestibility, pathological urge for hypnosis, etc.
Two other eminent psychiatrists and authors, Doctors Herbert and David Spiegel, conclude, "In our experience of using hypnosis with thousands of patients, we have had no case of a patient who became psychotic as a result of hypnosis .... Surprisingly, we have tested many frankly paranoid patients for hypnotizability with no adverse effect."
Jacob H. Conn, M.D., one of the first Presidents of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, wrote, "In my own practice, over a period of 30 years, which includes the treatment of over 3,000 patients, I have not observed hypnosis 'precipitating a psychiatric illness.' Patients have been reported by others ... as becoming psychotic following hypnosis, but never, in my opinion, because of hypnosis.” In a critical evaluation of the historical, experimental, and clinical data, Conn concluded that the answer to the question, "Is hypnosis really dangerous," was, in his opinion, an unqualified 'NO."
A well-known lay hypno-therapist, researcher, and author, Leslie M. LeCron, believes that it can be safely said, and all authorities will agree, that hypnosis, in itself, is completely harmless. No bad effects, either mental or physical, from the mere fact of being hypnotized have ever been incurred by anyone."
It takes an advanced degree in psychology or medicine to practice hypnosis. The use of hypnosis in most states is not regulated by law in this regard. A few states, however, have restricted the use of hypnosis to medical and psychological professionals under their Psychology Licensing Acts or Medical Practice Acts. Even so, most of these states permit lay hypnotechnicians to accept referrals and practice hypnosis under the supervision of a licensed doctor. Hypnosis is easy to learn and does not require an M.D. or Ph.D. for the limited purpose and use to which the hypnoinvestigator puts it. Furthermore, lack of an advanced degree does not diminish a hypnotist's expertise if he is well trained.
MYTH: It takes years of study to learn hypnosis. The basic art of hypnosis is relatively straightforward and simple to learn, and as such, any layman can learn hypnosis just by reading a book on the subject. A major criticism of most forensic hypnosis courses leveled by many psychological and medical professionals is that they are too short; the (18) reputable courses range from three or four days in length. Although the authors tend to agree with this criticism, believing that most courses fall particularly short in the area of supervised hands on experience with practice subjects, it should be noted that a sizeable number of psychological and medical professionals themselves were taught hypnosis in three-day seminars. During the period of 1955 to 1961, a group of highly respected authorities, which included, among others, Leslie LeCron and William Kroger, M.D., organized a traveling teaching group that gave what were known as "Hypnosis Seminars," which were chaired by Milton Erickson, M.D. The purpose of the seminar was to make training in hypnosis available to as many physicians, psychologists, and dentists as possible as quickly as possible. Of importance here is the fact that the group "did not believe it essential that its students have intensive background study in basic - psychology, psychopathology, or psychodynamics. They held that the average physician, psychologist, or dentist could, with this minimal three-day training, be trusted to use hypnotic techniques in his practice or research in a primarily beneficial way."The authors stress, however, and we are sure that the "Hypnosis Seminars" group would readily agree, that although basic hypnosis is easy to learn, it takes vears of stud y and practice to become an expert.
In conclusion, the authors believe that an informed person, whether a layman or professional in the field, does not have a sound argument against the training of law enforcement officers in hypnosis. The authors draw this conclusion from a unique perspective: we have been on both sides of the fence. Prior to our intimate working relationship with law enforcement, we had some stereotyped characterizations of law enforcement and delusions of overzealous detectives and prosecutors. From personal acquaintances, we know for a fact that some authorities in the field of hypnosis who are ardent opponents share these same delusions. In fact, prior to our exposure to law enforcement, we would just as vehemently opposed and objected to hypnosis being in police hands. Once working directly with law enforcement on special Law Enforcement Assistance Administration crime control projects, however, the authors had these stereotyped characterizations and delusions quickly deflated. Five years of a continued working association has led us to the point of training officers in hypno-investigation with no reservations or regrets. We would ask, based on this personal experience, that critics and detractors do not judge too quickly from the isolation and security of academic and research enclaves. They should first experience law enforcement from the standpoint of the policeman.
It should be quite clear by now that hypnosis is only a tool and is consequently the property of no particular group. A knife in the hands of a surgeon is used to cure, in the hands of a soldier to kill, and in the hands of a (19) cook to peel potatoes. Furthermore, it and effective investigative tool in their fight against crime. Ultimately, it is the enforcement utilize this safe, efficient, taxpayer who will benefit.
ATTEMPTS TO RESTRICT THE USE OF HYPNOSIS BY SCEH: Opponents of hypno-investigation have also tried to get the courts to regulate the use of hypnosis in criminal cases. One of the most organized recent attempts was an appeal to the California Supreme Court in 1977 of the People v. Quaglino conviction, in which the defendant was convicted largely on testimony from the hypnotically refreshed memory of a witness. The defense attorneys, backed by the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as well as by Doctor Martin Orne and Doctor Ernest Hilgard, two world-renowned authorities on hypnosis, asked the state supreme court to limit the use of hypnosis in criminal investigations. They wanted the technique to only be used under court order with medical supervision and videotaping. The California (24) Supreme Court refused to hear the case as did the United States Supreme Court, which denied certiorari on a later petition.
Professional hypnosis organizations have also objected to the training of lay hypno-investigators as evidenced by the resolution of The Society of Clinical and Experimental Hynosis in October 1978. The Society, besides pointed out a legitimate concern of relying on uncorroborated hypno-inducted testimony, recommended that hypno-investigations only be conducted by “trained psychiatrists or psychologist with experience in the forensic use of hypnosis.” The Society also stated that is was considered unethical to train, collaborate with or serve as a consultant to “laymen who are utilizing hypnosis.”
... many so-called experts are members of the medical community who unwantedly assert that they are the only ones capable of utilizing and practicing the hypnotic art. In fact, the medical fraternity for centuries refused to admit the wonderful potentialities of hypnosis although, historically, it was successfully used and applied by many others, including religious leaders, psychologist, doctors, dentist, and even laymen. During the last score of years, when the economic possibilities of hypnosis became apparent, there has been a nationwide medical project to corner the of hypnotism, not for just therapeutic and medical proclivity, but for all purposes. In this effort they have sought to make it appear that hypnosis is a very dangerous thing and is a bizarre condition which they alone, are competent to understand and safely handle. All of this of course, belies the accurate and impartial history of hypnosis.
To any fair minded, qualified, and logical observer, it seem ridiculous to note how hypnosis is pictured, which applied to or practiced by anyone other than a member of the medical association, as similar to the fictional evil wielded by Svengali over Trilby, but, when practiced or utilized by the medical member, hypnosis becomes an agency of great human facility. No one can or may reasonably doubt that the use or application of the techniques leading to the hypnotic state for medical or therapeutic purposes should be restricted to those trained in and authorized to practice medicine. But to say that those so trained are the only ones who should be authorized to practice in the broad field of hypnotism is a demonstrated fallacy ....
Attempts to define hypnosis as anything but a suggestible state of normal human beings are doomed to failure. For this reason, it defies captivity by special interests or for special purposes. Efforts by legislation to confine the non-therapeutic aspects of hypnotism to exclusive groups are certain to encounter considerable legal entanglements. Chief among these is the self-evident fact that the indefinable natural mental state of an individual, known as hypnosis, cannot be defined, banned, or controlled by law.
This position is shared by practicing hypno-investigators in the field. Sergeant Charles Diggett, an experienced hypnotist with the N.Y.P.D., stated the following in a recent interview in reference to some major New York cases in which he utilized hypnosis:
Most of the witnesses in these cases had no reticence about being hypnotized by us. In fact, some of them even volunteered before we ever approached them with the idea. The opposition doesn't come from them. It comes from doctors and psychiatrists who want to control hypnosis, and civil libertarians who don't know anything about it.
Similarly, Doctor Reiser argues that the detractors of police officers being trained in hypnosis are "a small handful of psychiatrists and psychologists who feel that hypnosis should be (25) limited to professionals. But their domain is therapy, and this is investigation, which is the domain of the investigator." The present-day police officer, who is many times more educated and highly trained than his predecessors were, is a professional in his own area of competence, just as the psychologist or psychiatrist is a professional in his. The authors suggest that the police officer trained as a hypno-investigator is not a layman at all, but is a professional utilizing a tool in the service of his profession.
Forensic hypnosis is currently experiencing a rapid development and broadening application that should continue commensurate with the interest. With continued exposure and inevitable reports of substantial success, interest will grow even more, creating an ascending spiral of discovery and application.
As a precautionary note, however, it is likely that its continued growth and acceptance in the criminal justice arena will create an ever increasing encroachment and threat to certain established authorities and disciplines. As discussed above, their natural tendency will be to resist until they eventually capitulate and give in to a sound and properly developed new science. Hypno-investigators in any state would be wise to keep a vigilant watch over every legislative session and be able to counter any attempts at regulation with sufficient and competent expert testimony. (26)

4. I BELIEVE THAT THE USE OF HYPNOSIS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS. FRANK S. CAPRIO
Hypnosis is a rapidly growing specialty. In 1958 there were no more than two hundred dentists and physicians in the United States using hypnosis. There is at the present time a minimum of 15,000 dentists and physicians using hypnosis.  Most of the instruction in hypnosis is now being given by teams of traveling dentists and physicians who offer three-and four-day and one-week post-graduate courses in dental and medical hypnosis. These courses are open to practicing dentists and physicians and persons in related fields.
I believe that the use of hypnosis should not be limited to physicians and dentists. It is a proven fact that many qualified and ethical hypno-technicians are capable of achieving successful therapeutic results.
Lectures regarding hypnosis and self-hypnosis. should be made available to the general public. The inestimable value of self-hypnosis should inspire everyone to apply self-hypnosis to day-to-day self-improvement.
Hypnosis and self-hypnosis are gaining increasing importance in the lives of all human beings. The potentials are unlimited. I predict hypnosis will become a great force for the prevention of wars. War is a form of insanity, caused by hate sickness, irrational fears, uncontrolled aggressiveness, and unresolved conflicts arising from religious and other differences which account for the widespread violence we are presently witnessing. Hypnosis is based on the control of man's intellect over his emotions. Man's greatest triumph some day will be the conquest of himself so that he may teach others it is better to love than to hate. It was J .B.S. Haldane, British scientist, who substantiated this when he stated: (182) "Anyone who has seen even a single example of the power of hypnosis and suggestion must realize that the face of the world and the possibilities of existence will be totally altered when we control their effects and standardize their application. " (183) [FRANK S. CAPRIO: BETTER HEALTH WITH SELF HYPNOSIS: PARKER PUB CO. NEW YORK: 1985]

5. DR. BRYAN KNIGHT: SHOULD THE PRACTICE OF HYPNOTHERAPY BE RESTRICTED TO DOCTORS? (For entire article go to http://durbinhypnosis.com/knight.htm ) Definitely not. Physicians cannot even agree among themselves about hypnotherapy. There has been an ongoing feud within medical circles since the beginnings with [Dr] Mesmer. In the early years of the last century, surgeons were jeered at, even struck off their registers, for daring to reveal they had operated hundreds of times on patients with only hypnosis as an anesthetic.

Hypnosis in psychotherapy fared no better. When Dr Ambroise Liebeault began to practice hypnotherapy in 1860 he was ridiculed by his colleagues - despite the cures his patient enjoyed. Today hypnosis is widely used by all kinds of medical personnel. In the 1950s both the British and the American Medical Associations endorsed hypnotherapy. However, a widespread belief among many physicians, dentists and PhD psychologists, is that the use of hypnosis should be restricted to themselves. They accuse outsiders of not having adequate understanding, training or ethical standards to responsibly employ hypnosis, especially in psychotherapy. Typical of this view is the following accusation: "Stage hypnotists and other lay people, have trifled with hypnosis for a long time, mainly for sensational display. Many of them fancy themselves to be hypnotherapist and advertise themselves as such. Physicians and psychologists across the country have warned that the irresponsible practices of these lay people endanger the public interest, and attempts have been made to outlaw them" (Brown & Fromm, 1986, p.147). Brown and Fromm are right to be concerned about irresponsible practices but wrong to imply that only physicians and psychologists behave in the public interest.

Integrity is not something that is conferred along with a medical or psychological degree. If it were, 7% of psychiatrists and 12% of psychologists would not have had sex with their patients nor abused them in other ways such as enmeshing them in cults. As for abuse specifically involving hypnosis perhaps the most startling is murder. By a doctor. It is ironic that the case is cited by psychologists who want to restrict the use of hypnosis to professionals: "Some years ago, a physician/hypnotherapist who was having an extra-marital affair with a woman whom he wanted to marry hypnotized his wife and suggested to her that she was developing a headache. When the headache would become very severe, he told her, she would swallow all the pills in the bottle he had put in her lap. They would make her fall asleep, so she would not feel the pain any longer. After a while she reached for the pills and took them all. It was a lethal dose." (Brown and Fromm, 1986, p.146).

6. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LEGAL RESTRICTION OF HYPNOSIS: H. B. GIBSON & M. HEAP: HYPNOSIS IN THERAPY: LAWRENCE ERLBAUM: ASSOCIATES: HILLSDALE USA: 1991
In defense of lay practitioners, we ought to say that the types of complaints mentioned above are probably very much the exception rather than the rule. It is more likely that these therapists include many sincere people whose sensitivity and insightfulness may compensate for their often odd or simplistic notions. Moreover, an impressive string of professional and academic qualifications does not guarantee that the holder will be an effective therapist. Note also, that one reason given by the Government for not pursuing with legislation on the registration of hypnosis is the lack of any overt pressure from the public (Waxman, personal communication). Consider too, that the kind of complaints cited above concerning inconsiderate and unsympathetic treatment are all too often made by patients about their own doctors and consultants. No doubt lay therapists will hear some very sorry stories from their clients about their experiences at the hands of the professionals. Also, it is not unknown for professionals to misbehave themselves with their patients.

We are not satisfied that legal restraints on the use of hypnosis are really in the best public interest. For one thing, the experts are unable to agree what hypnosis is, how to define it, or whether it exists at all. Moreover, as we have frequently emphasized, hypnotic procedures resemble and overlap with other psychological methods such as progressive relaxation and autogenic training.
We believe that instead of investing our energies in trying to present hypnosis as a dangerous practice and the property of a qualified few, we should make hypnosis more widely available within the Health Service by recognizing that many of our colleagues have a legitimate use for this procedure with their patients, and we should seek to provide them with proper training and standards of practice. (197)
People have a right to choose how to solve their problems, and this includes the choice of consulting either an orthodox professional or a lay or "alternative" practitioner. However, freedom of choice can only exist whet: there is sufficient information on the choices available. A case can therefore be made for regulating the use of certain professional labels. For example, members of at least two lay organizations of hypnosis call themselves "doctors". This may cause considerable confusion among members of the public who assume that either the person so designated has a medical degree or holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree, signifying his or her attainment of excellence in some field of academic study or scientific research. Since in almost all instances it is the public who, through their taxes, pay to train these people, then it is reasonable that they demand that the use of the term "doctor" should be reserved only for persons who have successfully undertaken that training. Finally, we suggest that the law acknowledges that anyone who is consulted by another person with the clear intention of benefiting from some form of treatment, should be liable to prosecution for any coercing of the patient for sexual, financial or other illegitimate gain. : HYPNOSIS IN THERAPY: LAWRENCE ERLBAUM: ASSOCIATES: HILLSDALE USA: 1991
In defense of lay practitioners, we ought to say that the types of complaints mentioned above are probably very much the exception rather than the rule. It is more likely that these therapists include many sincere people whose sensitivity and insightfulness may compensate for their often odd or simplistic notions. Moreover, an impressive string of professional and academic qualifications does not guarantee that the holder will be an effective therapist. Note also, that one reason given by the Government for not pursuing with legislation on the registration of hypnosis is the lack of any overt pressure from the public (Waxman, personal communication). Consider too, that the kind of complaints cited above concerning inconsiderate and unsympathetic treatment are all too often made by patients about their own doctors and consultants. No doubt lay therapists will hear some very sorry stories from their clients about their experiences at the hands of the professionals. Also, it is not unknown for professionals to misbehave themselves with their patients.

We are not satisfied that legal restraints on the use of hypnosis are really in the best public interest. For one thing, the experts are unable to agree what hypnosis is, how to define it, or whether it exists at all. Moreover, as we have frequently emphasized, hypnotic procedures resemble and overlap with other psychological methods such as progressive relaxation and autogenic training.
We believe that instead of investing our energies in trying to present hypnosis as a dangerous practice and the property of a qualified few, we should make hypnosis more widely available within the Health Service by recognizing that many of our colleagues have a legitimate use for this procedure with their patients, and we should seek to provide them with proper training and standards of practice. (197)
People have a right to choose how to solve their problems, and this includes the choice of consulting either an orthodox professional or a lay or "alternative" practitioner. However, freedom of choice can only exist whet: there is sufficient information on the choices available. A case can therefore be made for regulating the use of certain professional labels. For example, members of at least two lay organizations of hypnosis call themselves "doctors". This may cause considerable confusion among members of the public who assume that either the person so designated has a medical degree or holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree, signifying his or her attainment of excellence in some field of academic study or scientific research. Since in almost all instances it is the public who, through their taxes, pay to train these people, then it is reasonable that they demand that the use of the term "doctor" should be reserved only for persons who have successfully undertaken that training. Finally, we suggest that the law acknowledges that anyone who is consulted by another person with the clear intention of benefiting from some form of treatment, should be liable to prosecution for any coercing of the patient for sexual, financial or other illegitimate gain.