For many, the hypnotic state represents a period in which the conscious guard is dropped. They feel they may compulsively reveal the darker side of their nature, confess their hostility or relate information they would never voluntarily divulge to anyone. This is the real danger they see in hypnosis. To protect themselves from it, they attack it. It is much like the fanatic vice crusader who militantly attacks sin in order to alleviate his own feelings of guilt stemming from the fact that vice actually attracts him.
Fear of hypnosis takes different forms, but basically it is the fear of revealing one’s true feelings. An employee, for instance, at a gathering which included the employer he dislikes, would never volunteer as a subject for hypnosis if the occasion arose. He would be afraid he would do or say something which might endanger his position. Hypnosis for him would be “dangerous” because he would be afraid to take the chance. The truth is, however, that this individual would be taking no chance. The hypnotic state is not a confessional period. The subject is aware at all times of what he is saying. If the subject does not wish to pursue a line of questioning, he tells the hypnotist. If the hypnotist persisted further along this line, the subject would shake off the hypnotic state.
Another misconception about hypnosis is the widely held belief that the subject is unconscious. This represents a threat to the security of the individual. Actually, the hypnotic state is a period of extreme awareness in which the subject is hyperacute. Furthermore, the subject is not asleep, nor is he in a trance state in the correct meaning of that term. He is in an altered state of awareness with his faculties and reasoning ability intact. Inducing hypnosis merely creates a mood or state in which the powers of suggestibility are heightened.
When the general public and the medical profession become familiar with the true nature of hypnosis, we shall have a greater acceptance and utilization of this power. It is a slow process but one which will finally evolve. In the final analysis, I believe the only danger that exists is in the mind of the individual who fears hypnosis because of whatever subjective qualms he has about his own emotional involvement in the hypnotic process.
Of course, all persons using hypnosis for the alleviation of pain should consult their family physician. Pain is nature’s way of indicating that something is wrong with the organism. It would be foolish to suggest that a pain in the stomach will disappear when this may be a sign of a needed appendix operation. The same may be said of constant migraine headaches. It must be determined that the headache is not a symptom of a brain tumor or some other pathological condition. It may be of interest to know that hypnosis is presently being used to relieve pain in terminal cancer patients. There is an excellent article on this subject, and I recommend it to doctors reading this book. It is called “The Use of Hypnosis in the Case of the Cancer Patient” which appeared in the January 1954 issue of Cancer.1
There are at present several thousand dentists throughout the country using hypnosis. They have formed their own society and publish a quarterly journal, The Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry. One of the best books in this field is called Dental Hypnosis Handbook by Jacob Stolzenberg, D.D.S.
An excellent article is “Danger! Hypnotherapist at Work” by M. Abramson.2 The author reviews briefly the pros and cons regarding the medical use of hypnosis. He concludes: “It is the author’s opinion, based on an extensive personal experience of over 15 years, that the use of hypnotherapy by a physician or dentist who has been properly trained and who uses this technique strictly within his field of competence carries with it no more (and probably less) ‘danger’ than the use of many other techniques of treatment used in medicine today.”
1 At the same time, I would highly recommend the booklet, Helping the Dying Patient and His Family, published by the National Association of Social Workers, 2 Park Avenue, New York 16, New York. Price: 75 cents.
2 Bull. Hennepin Co. Med. Soc., 1960, 31:101-106
Chapter 3
Is Hypnosis the Answer?
Dr. George Estabrooks, professor of psychology at Colgate University and author of the book, Hypnotism, made the following two statements in a paper called “The Future of Hypnosis” given as part of a program on “The Nature of Hypnosis” at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in 1959:
“It would be well to sound a word of caution against certain attitudes which have become prevalent and which can be well illustrated in the field of medicine. In this respect, direct suggestion is under the ban. For example, a dictum, ‘Never remove the symptom unless the cause is understood,’ is much emphasized. Its validity is greatly open to question, since much of medical practice is direct symptom removal, as only a little thought makes apparent.
“Another dictum generally followed is that the unconscious background of symptom-complexes must necessarily be made conscious to effect a cure. Reasonable and thoughtful consideration of the extensive role of the unconscious in daily living and functioning renders this dictum much less creditable.”
I should like to discuss both of these statements in some detail as they invariably arise in the mind of the individual seeking help through hypnosis.
The first thought that comes to mind is that all the religious healings cited in the Bible involve direct symptom removal. The cures that are effected by religious devotees traveling to sacred shrines are also in the realm of direct symptom removal. I have yet to hear a criticism of this type of treatment directed at religious leaders or condemnation of the religious shrines. These cures are accepted as evidence of the power of faith or attributed to the super-natural. In these cases, nothing is ever done to make the person cured understand the nature of the unconscious mechanisms which contributed to his problem.
Religious healing cannot be dismissed by merely saying, “It isn’t scientific.” A methodology is only scientific when it works. It is of no value if it doesn’t help the individual seeking help. We must face the fact that not all people can be helped by the same psychological treatment. We can readily see this in the following extreme example: An aborigine suffering from a psychological problem certainly wouldn’t be a candidate for psychoanalysis as we know it. He could, no doubt, be helped much more readily by a witch doctor. It also stands to reason that the sophisticated Westerner would not be influenced by the incantations of a tribal medicine man.
Going further, we find there are many schools of psychotherapy and many approaches to solving man’s emotional problems. The cure rate for all of them, however, is approximately the same. I think we must accept the fact that there is no one sound, logical, scientific approach. I believe that so long as the end result is achieved, the methodology was scientific for that individual’s needs. The goal of all therapies is to help the patient free himself from whatever emotional problems beset him.
This approach, to some readers, may seem an oversimplification of a very complex problem, but I think it’s time that we had a simple, workable formula devoid of technical jargon. Too often, complex technical terms and theories have been glibly used to explain away failures. I believe we need more and more emphasis on measures to make the patient feel better rather than spending most of the time trying to find out why he doesn’t feel well. This, of course, is symptom removal again.
I should like to point out an interesting fact pertaining to Biblical healers. So long as the fame of the healer preceded his arrival in any country, he was