OUR RIGHT TO PRACTICE OUR LEGAL PROFESSION GERALD F. KEIN, CHt UNLIMITED HUMAN: WINTER 1999
The motivation for writing this article is the renewed threat to eliminate our ability as licensed hypnotists to practice our profession not only in my state of Florida, but throughout the entire country. Perhaps this article will arouse the majority of hypnotists, irrespective of professional affiliation, to join together with one voice to expose those who would desire to take our profession from us. Historical Notes: There was a time when other licensed professions were not licensed; for example, Psychologists, Mental Health Counsellors (MHC), Marriage and Family Therapists (MFT), Clinical Social Workers (CSW), etc. Each of these licensed professionals developed in competition with other professions, and the profession with the loudest voice won the license. In Florida, Homeopathy and Naturopathy lost out to Allopathy (the MDs). However, Homeopathy is again on the rise, although it is now being championed under a new name, autoimmunology, by the MDs. Osteopathy developed from traditional medicine, although the MDs viciously opposed it. Optometrists developed, not from the medical profession, but from the optical profession, i.e., lens grinders, eyeglass makers, etc. Chiropractic is another of the healing arts that the MDs failed to eliminate. Psychiatry tried and is still trying to limit clinical psychology. Both professions would like to possess hypnosis to the exclusion of all others. The Psychologists, in Florida, fought the Mental Health Counsellors, Marriage and Family Therapists, Clinical Social Workers, etc., to prevent licensing of those professions, but they failed. These turf fights continue unabated across our nation. From this I think we have learned the following lessons:
1. The existing licensed professions always object to the establishment of a new regulated or licensed profession, by proclaiming that the proposed activity to be regulated or licensed is already within the scope of their own license.
2. The activity proposed for licensing or regulation has been practiced, for many years or decades, by unlicensed professionals. This is abundantly clear for unlicensed professional hypnotists.
3. It is especially helpful for licensing if the proposed activity to be regulated is engaged in by a relatively large number of practitioners.
4. In all cases, the proposed activity to be regulated was organized in a professional society or association; they established educational requirements and developed their own schools based on a universal educational curriculum and standards in order to perpetuate their profession. (Optometry and Chiropractic are good examples.) In many cases such as MHCs, MFTs, etc., they developed courses to be taught in existing colleges in their 2 subject leading to degrees in their respective field. In most cases, however, the practitioners were working in their field before the development of their college courses.
5. All of the new developments, the new learning, the newly regulated or licensed professions are part of the creative growth process. They are not the creations of the old, established licensed professions but they are developed in spite of the opposition to new information and growth. If this were not true. doctors would still be bleeding their patients as an accepted medical treatment and Dr. Mesmer would have been accepted as the genius that he was. [Since the other licensed professions are all claiming hypnosis to be theirs, I think one of our most important goals is to strongly challenge any claim to exclusivity by any other profession.]
6. The newly licensed professions also develop in response to the actual needs and desires of the public. Psychiatrists were initially insufficient in numbers, so the new Clinical Psychologists attempted to fill the gap. Clinical Psychologists were insufficient in numbers to satisfy the public’s need for counselling on less severe matters of mental health, so the MHCs. MFTs. And CSWs appeared, unlicensed, to fill the gap. Commentary on Hypnosis: 1. Hypnotists have been around for a long, long time without a unified effort to achieve regulation or licensing. Individual regulatory achievements may have satisfied some short-term needs, but it will prove a failed policy for the future. In most cases, the independent nature of hypnotists has been to just “go with the flow,” while doing their own thing. They feel that someone else will take care of all their legislative problems and they will ride on the coattails of their efforts. 2. The educational background of hypnotists spans from high school to the doctoral level. It has been shown that there is no correlation between education and skill in hypnosis. However, our society demands educational credibility for most services. 3. Since the other licensed professions are all claiming hypnosis to be theirs, I think one of our most important goals is to strongly challenge any claim to exclusivity by any other profession. 4. Hypnosis does not belong to anyone profession; it cuts across all professional and educational categories. 5. Another strong point is our skill and experience. We work many hours every day doing nothing but hypnosis. We do not use it as an occasional adjunct to another profession. We constantly study new methods and techniques as a requirement for our continued annual professional certifications instead of taking one small, limited, archaic class, as others do, and because of their professional licenses
are considered the consummate professionals. About the Author: Gerald Kein, CHt is the Director of the Omni Hypnosis Training Centre in DeLand, Florida and has, for the past thirteen years, presented workshops and classes covering over 30 topics in various hypnosis conferences around 3 the country. His original innovative step-by-step video and audio hypnotism workshops have been widely acclaimed as a much needed support system for profession. The current climate of consumerism will ultimately compel practitioners to be more specific regarding qualification(s).
COURT DISMISSES LAWSUIT AGAINST HYPNOTHERAPIST: RAPHAEL ONSTEIN: SUBCONSCIOUSLY SPEAKING: 1991 VOL6 NO2
[Reprinted with permission from Hypnotherapy Today, Journal of the American Association of Professional Hypnotherapists, December 1990.]
PHILADELPHIA–A lawsuit against a hypnotherapist which had claimed adverse reactions from a demonstration of hypnosis in a high school classroom four years ago was dismissed November 9, 1990 by a federal court arbitration panel.
Hypnotherapist Joseph Scott of Norwood, Pennsylvania had been named in the suit. A school district, school superintendent, a high school principal, and a psychology instructor had also been named but had earlier been removed from the suit by the panel, which consisted of three lawyers.
The lawsuit had been filed by two former students at the school and their parents. It claimed that the students, who had participated in demonstrations of hypnosis by Joseph Scott in their psychology classes, had experienced difficulty coming out of trances, and had suffered aftereffects including nightmares, emotional distress, anxiety, and embarrassment. The suit also noted that Scott had no medical training, parental permission had not been obtained, and the students had not been warned of possible adverse affects.
The federal court panel ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had not proven that they had suffered harm from the demonstration. Joseph Scott, a retired Philadelphia police officer, operates a clinic specializing in stop smoking, stress, and weight control programs. He says that in his more than 35 years of involvement with hypnosis, he has never seen an adverse reaction.