Clinical vs. Lay Hypnosis: A Hopeless Battle?
An Editorial by Steve K.D. Eichel, Ph.D.
page 3 of 6

Implications: The political ramifications of this paradigm dispute are manifold. If one accepts hypnosis as a distinct profession, then hypnotists can and should be separately trained and credentialed, and perhaps even licensed. In a sense, this question can be re-framed as "Who owns hypnosis?" There are several precedents to this conflict. Organized medicine's initial opposition to the licensing of psychologists was based on a rejection of clinical psychology as a distinct profession separate from the practice of medicine. A similar battle has been waged by organized psychology against the licensing of counselors; several state psychology associations (including, at one point, the Pennsylvania Psychological Association) argued that counselors and other Masters-level therapists should not be licensed because "counseling" or "psychotherapy" are activities performed by psychologists, and as such do not merit recognition as distinct professions. I imagine organized psychology might have taken clinical social work to task on this point as well, had well-recognized forms of social work credentialing (e.g., the ACSW) not preceded psychology licensure in many states.

Side note: A primary issue here involves two terms whose presence in a licensing law are central to the health professional's right to independent (i.e., medically unsupervised) practice: diagnosis and treatment. Since treatment (we have been taught) ensues from diagnosis, to be independent a professional must be legally authorized to perform both.

Just as physicians once argued that, without formal medical training, psychologists are not competent to diagnose and then treat mental disorders, psychologists have argued that "counselors" are inadequately trained to diagnose and treat individuals with psychological problems.

During its early battles for licensure, organized psychology successfully pointed to organized medicine's inability to prove that patients were being harmed by psychologists who in fact were already practicing independently (or under very nominal medical supervision). Organized counseling has made the same argument when faced with opposition to counselor licensure from state psychology associations. Now we are hearing the same argument being espoused by organized clinical hypnosis in our efforts to shut down lay hypnotists. It is important to note here that anecdotal evidence of harm has been found by most state legislatures to be inadequate as an argument against licensure. For the same reason, state attorneys have been hesitant to prosecute uncredentialed/unlicensed mental health practitioners on the sole basis of practicing a healing art without a license. Clearly, one hears far more complaints against physicians and psychologists than lay hypnotists.

Where is the hard evidence that lay hypnotists are harming people? Or is this battle merely part of a larger turf war, waged to Next