NOTICE RE: AMA 1958 ENDORSEMENT OF HYPNOSIS |
|
" Now that we are a separate and distinct profession many of our members will be called on to do media interviews since hypnotism is always good for a story with great reader interest. Occasionally we get e-mails commenting on what I was quoted as saying in a news article or interview. Let’s face it, when I speak to a reporter I am truthful, factual and positive. I have to assume the reporter is legitimate and wants to be truthful, factual and honest in what he or she will submit to the editor, and that the editor will also be factual and honest in editing of the interview. However, this does not always happen; not necessarily with any ulterior motive to change my statements, but because of poor note taking, recall or understanding by the reporter. Occasionally a reporter and/or editor will have a prejudice about hypnotists/hypnotism, or that I am a retired doctor of chiropractic, or might just not like my looks or my personality . . . we never know. The fact is that when you are interviewed by the media there is no point at which they will offer to let you look at an article before it is printed, so their interpretation and editing of what you said is what they use. Usually it is pretty accurate except in the previously mentioned instances. It used to be common for professional hypnotists to say, “It doesn’t matter what they say about me as long as they spell my name right.” However, we have gained so much ground as a separate and distinct profession that it does matter, so we all have to be very careful when being interviewed not to say something that will cast a negative light on us or our profession. Imagine when you are being interviewed by a reporter that you are speaking to the IRS or the FBI—answer the questions factually and in a positive manner and you’ll do just fine. Last Spring an NGH member in New Jersey when being interviewed used the familiar, “hypnotism was approved by the AMA in 1958” statement, and found that now the AMA?has a public relations coordinator who contacted the newspaper and contradicted that statement. The newspaper jumped on this and printed a retraction of the statement made in the interview. Actually, the statement in its entirety is included in a report which endorses the 1955 British Medical Association study, and concludes that “the use of hypnosis has a recognized place in the medical armamentarium and is a useful technique in the treatment of certain illnesses when employed by qualified medical and dental personnel. (‘Medical use of hypnosis,’ JAMA, 1958)” New Jersey Guild member, Rhoda Kopy was kind enough to send us the following letter from the AMA Media Outreach Coordinator which was printed by the newspaper as a retraction. “Hypnotherapists commonly refer to a 1958 report published by an AMA advisory committee on hypnosis, which stated: “The use of hypnosis has a recognized place in the medical armamentarium that is a useful technique in the treatment of certain illnesses when employed by qualified medical and dental personnel. Unfortunately, hypnotherapists will omit the fact that the 1958 hypnosis report is no longer included in current AMA policy. In June 1987, the AMA's policy-making body rescinded all AMA policies from 1881–1958 (other than two not relating to hypnosis).” However, according to Alfred A. Barrios, PhD, in Vol 7 No. 1, of the magazine, Psychotherapy, “In 1961 the AMA recommended that medical professionals receive 144 hours of training in hypnotherapy.” However, every year the AMA issues the CPT publication, which includes all recognized and approved procedures and their codes. Current Procedural Terminology lists all these recognized procedures, along with a five-digit code that is used to report the procedure on an insurance form, and hypnotism is included. Our legislative maven, Scot Giles will tell you emphatically that this CPT code is to be used only when working with a referral from an appropriately-licensed medical professional. Remember—this code only refers to hypnotism done by or under the supervision of a physician or dentist, etc. Yes, it is true that there is approval of hypnotism by the AMA “when employed by qualified medical and dental personnel,” so, in my opinion, the 1987 action really doesn’t alter the original intent and actions that were taken in 1958 and 1961, but it should not be used as a printed endorsement of hypnotism in any of our literature . . . simply as an historical fact. Many instructors cite the initial 1958 endorsement by the AMA when speaking to a class, with the full explanation as just explained. They could also cite the 1892 report the there is a “genuineness of the hypnotic state” (‘British Medical Journal, 1892’), or the 1955 BMA report: “The subcommittee is satisfied after consideration of the available evidence that hypnotism is of value and may be the treatment of choice in some case of so-called psychosomatic disorder and It may also be of value for revealing unrecognized motives and conflicts in such conditions. As a treatment, in the opinion of the Subcommittee it has proved its ability to remove symptoms and to alter morbid habits of thought and behavior [...] . . . there is a place for hypnotism in the production of anesthesia or analgesia for surgical and dental operations, and in suitable subjects it is an effective method of relieving pain in childbirth without altering he normal course of labor.” Further, some instructors even cite the following approval by the Catholic church: “The late Pope Pius gave his approval to the use of hypnosis on several occasions. He stated that the use of hypnosis by physicians and dentist for diagnosis and treatment was permitted, but that it was not permitted for Catholics to enter into hypnosis for entertainment purposes. In an article entitled, ‘Hypnosis as Anaesthesia’ by Reverend Gerald Kelly, S.J., (‘Hospital Progress, December, 1957’), he listed the following quotations: The first quotation from the Vatican is from an address given to an audience of physicians on January 8, 1956, on the use of hypnosis in childbirth. Reverend Kelly summarized the Pope’s three cardinal points as follows: (1) Hypnotism is a serious scientific matter, and not something to be dabbled in. (2) In its scientific use the precautions dictated by both science and morality are to be heeded. (3) Under the aspect of anaesthesia, it is governed by the same principle as any other from of anaesthesia. This is to say that the rules of good medicine apply to the use of hypnotism; and in so far as it use conforms to these rules, it is in conformity with good morality.” In my opinion, the 1987 action really doesn’t alter the original intent and actions that were taken in 1958 and 1961, but it shouldn’t be used as an endorsement of hypnotism in any of our literature—simply as an historical fact. If you are citing the AMA or BMA sanctions in any of your literature with the thought that it gives more legitimacy to what you do as a Consulting Hypnotist you are advised to remove it . . . you don’t need it as an endorsement of hypnotism. I really don’t believe that prospective clients are going to say to themselves, “Gee, the AMA approved of the use of hypnotism in 1958, so I guess I can call this Consulting Hypnotist and make an appointment.” We have established our profession, our practices, our publications, and trainings on one thing—RESULTS—so, keep helping ordinary, everyday people with ordinary, everyday problems and you will not only build your reputation and practice, but you will contribute to the growth of our profession. Used with permission: |