http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...al/7054249.stmA woman who falsely accused her father of rape after undergoing a discredited form of therapy has received an out-of-court settlement.
It's well known now that this 'therapy' is completely bogus and indeed dangerous. It shows up the potential of many compensation claims against the NHS should they embrace such forms of unproven quackery.
A prime example of what could happen if the NHS embraces 'integrative' or 'complementary' therapies as the likes of Prince Charles want it to.
.
People still believe in recovered memory therapy? :o
What a ridiculous concept, memory is a notoriously tricky thing to be recalled with a fair amount of accuracy. Especially decades after the fact.
I remember rosanne Barre also accused her father and family of similar things. Which was also later found to be bullshit.
De omnibus dubitandum
Loads of info about "recovered memories" on this site:
http://www.fmsfonline.org/currentnewsletter.html
Fascinating stuff, but it makes for some quite harrowing reading.
I'd have thought it was the father who should get compensation!
This is an area that I'm interested in as I have a friend who had this therapy.
Before he had it, he was outgoing, had a job, nice home, relationship etc. After he'd had this he lost everything and even though he 'saw' the images of what had happened to him during the therapy, he could not recall any of them outside of a session.
He is now receiving psychiatric treatment at the moment and is a shadow of his former self. This made me wonder, were the memories 'planted' there?
I have not failed... I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work!
I very much doubt they would be deliberately planted Dee, but people can certainly be 'led' by the 'therapists' subconcious expectations. Add that to the magnificent and vivid human imagination and the falible human memory in a highly suggestive state and you have a recipe for disaster.
I have my own bias against hypnotherapy. I tried it to quit smoking and it plunged me into a deep clinical depression. So even in 'benign' circumstances it can be a dangrous thing. With no beneficial effects as far as I can tell. This review of clinical trials concludes that "hypnosis cannot be considered a specific and efficacious treatment for smoking cessation"
Even BUFORA, the UFO organisation, banned the use of hypnosis (many years ago) to 'recover' memories of alien abductions. Surely it isn't still going on somewhere, is it?
Hello,Originally Posted by MischiefMonkey
Recently, after much discussion, the ASA (Advertising Standards Association) approved the following statement:
"Research comparing many different studies of hypnotherapy has shown that on average smokers are over five times more likely to break the habit with hypnosis than by willpower alone. Hypnotherapy in general is also proven to be more than twice as effective compared with nicotine gum. If you really want to stop smoking, then one session of hypnotherapy could be all you need. Satisfaction Guaranteed
Your money back if you're not happy with the treatment. You have to want to stop smoking to succeed but hypnotherapy can help dramatically. We are so confident that you will find our package of treatment beneficial that we guarantee to refund your payment in full if you are not satisfied with the quality of service provided by our clinic."
As I recall, the study you cite above was discussed in the correspondence between the ASA and hypnotherapists along with other studies such as the following one http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-smoking-.html
Either way, I'm somewhat skeptical of the conclusions you draw from the paper you cite and find the words the author(s) choose to use rather interesting. They state:
"Whereas hypnotic procedures generally yield higher rates of abstinence relative to wait-list and no-treatment conditions, hypnotic interventions are generally comparable to a variety of nonhypnotic treatments. The evidence for whether hypnosis yields outcomes superior to placebos is mixed"
Does this not translate as "hypnosis is better than nothing and just as good as other interventions but unknown whether hypnosis is better than a placebo"? That's basically what it reads to me - which makes me curious just how well the unlisted nonhypnotic treatments (NRT?) fare against placebos!!
As for your linking hypnotherapy with false memory syndrome, I would draw your attention to this page: http://www.bfms.org.uk/site_pages/myths_page.htm where one of the "myths" listed is:
"False memories of abuse are always implanted by poorly trained therapists, usually through hypnosis"
With the answer being:
"Not true. Any therapist, no matter how highly trained, may unwittingly encourage false memory if s/he subscribes to the belief that hidden memories of abuse are responsible for adult problems and that the memory can be recovered."
In otherwords it's not the modality that is used (hypnosis, counselling, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy) but the interaction (and shared beliefs) between client and therapist that make for the possibility of false memory.
To me, this makes sense since hypnosis is nothing other than a relaxed state of focussed attention. I certainly don't see how that can be called a "dangerous thing".
Without prying too much, is it not possible that there could have been some other cause for your 'deep clinical depression' than what is basically nothing more than relaxation therapy? Did you fail to quit smoking - and if so, is it not possible that any other treatment you tried might also have left you feeling extremely despondent?
Atavis
Do you seriously expect people to believe that that statement was approved by the ASA?
It's advertising hyperbole! No doubt from a hypnotherapist.
It certainly isn't true.
Here's what I got from a quick search of the ASA website.
It certainly isn't promoting hypnotherapy or offering money back guarantees.
.
Atavis,
I would be interested in reading the full text of the ASA adjudication relating to the advert you posted. Could you supply a link please.
The article you linked to was also interesting, and if a large body of good quality evidence suggested that hypnotherapy was indeed 5x more likely to produce long term results with smoking cessation I would certainly reconsider my position. However that is one analysis amongst others that give a very different result. Without knowing the quality of the studies included in the analysis it it difficult to comment.
In addition to a consensus in the medical research I would also want the hypnotherapy industry strictly regulated with meaningful censure and punishment for therapists who do damage their clients, as is the case in medical professions. As the situation currently stands, anyone can set themselves up as a hypnotherapist with minimal training, no registration and no regulation.
As for the cause of my depression, I suppose it is possible that coincidentally it spontaneously developed within 48 hours of the hypnotherapy. One anecdote does not conclusive proof make. However, having tried and failed using other methods before and since and not developing clinical depression through 'despondency' I wouldn't think resuming the ciggies after the depression started was the cause.
My hypnotherapist was particularly poor. I should have left straight away as the man seemed to be on a power trip. He used a lot of negative suggestions and didn't start the hypnosis until he had 'broken down' my defenses. In other words, made me cry by saying some pretty horrendous things.
Until there is a body that barstewards like this can be reported to and struck off by, until it is a criminal offense to practice as a hypnotherapist without a license and until there are conclusive studies showing hypnotherapy to be safe and efficacious, I would always advise people against hypnotherapy.
As I recall, there was no adjudication and that various statements were voluntarily submitted to http://www.cap.org.uk/cap/ (which is the relevant ASA department you send advertising copy to) until the final statement was mutually agreed upon.
You can certaily contact the National Council of Hypnotherapists or General Hypnotherapy Register via email for more info as they should have all the details on file.
There are conflicting studies for many things and what studies to include or exclude in any given metaanalysis is always going to be a matter of disagreement.The article you linked to was also interesting, and if a large body of good quality evidence suggested that hypnotherapy was indeed 5x more likely to produce long term results with smoking cessation I would certainly reconsider my position. However that is one analysis amongst others that give a very different result. Without knowing the quality of the studies included in the analysis it it difficult to comment.
What needs to be remembered here is the academic/practitioner divide. While the academic reviews studies and meta analyses the practitioner faces very, very different circumstances and - as a matter of routine - has to make choices without all the facts there and then.
For the practitioner the patient is there - literally in front of them - wanting treatment. They may have already tried NRT or counselling/psychotherapy or perhaps just not fancy it and want to go with hypnotherapy. (All very real possibilities.)
Smoking isn't easy to quit by any means and we know very little about what is best for each person - but each modality that has been shown to be successful should be available to people, who are, of course, not just data points in some experiment or other.
There is a hypnotherapy regulatory working group within the UK. http://www.hypnotherapyregulation.co.uk/In addition to a consensus in the medical research I would also want the hypnotherapy industry strictly regulated with meaningful censure and punishment for therapists who do damage their clients, as is the case in medical professions. As the situation currently stands, anyone can set themselves up as a hypnotherapist with minimal training, no registration and no regulation.
As to "damaging clients", whether by willful intent or gross negligence, yes, there should be penalties - but how is this to be defined and what standard of evidence is to be accepted?
Take this very thread on "Recovered Memory Therapy". What is that exactly? What does it look like? How is it done? Literally taking about "banning" this "dangerous" treament is basically just saying that people shouldn't talk about their past negative experiences in therapy! (Which, of course, is the very thing they've came there for in the first place!!)
Even hypnotherapy is just sitting in a comfortable chair relaxed watching what happened to you on an imaginary screen because it's a hell of a lot easier than reliving in your mind negative experiences (without the relaxed state and disassociation of hypnosis, therapy can be like having your teeth pulled without a local anaesthetic.)
So, you see, there isn't, strictly speaking, any such thing as "recovered memory therapy" there is only talking about the past with the very real possibility that things become exagerrated and warped.
I'm not, by any means, trying to excuse therapists who insert the idea that someone must have been sexually abused as a child - but how many really do this? Seriously! I can't think of anyone who would ever even consider turning around to someone and saying their symptoms suggest hidden memories of sexual abuse!
Where there might be a case for concern is with Freudian psychoanalysis with it's years long intensive twice weekly (or more) treatments and the therapists belief in the oedipus and elextra complex. And remember it's from Freudian psychoanalysis that the very theory of repressed memory comes from.
You certainlly don't have to discuss your private life, but I think you can understand why I'm skeptical about your depression being caused by hypnosis. Clearly it could have been any number of other things in your life and not just the failure to quit.As for the cause of my depression, I suppose it is possible that coincidentally it spontaneously developed within 48 hours of the hypnotherapy. One anecdote does not conclusive proof make. However, having tried and failed using other methods before and since and not developing clinical depression through 'despondency' I wouldn't think resuming the ciggies after the depression started was the cause.
If he is a member of a professional body then you may have grounds for complaint which could cause him to have trouble attaining future insurance to practice.My hypnotherapist was particularly poor. I should have left straight away as the man seemed to be on a power trip. He used a lot of negative suggestions and didn't start the hypnosis until he had 'broken down' my defenses. In other words, made me cry by saying some pretty horrendous things.
Since there is no difference between hypnotherapy and guided meditation or whatever the cat is already out of the bag as far as the techniques go. Where there should be regulation - clearly - is about the use of the term "therapist" in the title.Until there is a body that barstewards like this can be reported to and struck off by, until it is a criminal offense to practice as a hypnotherapist without a license and until there are conclusive studies showing hypnotherapy to be safe and efficacious, I would always advise people against hypnotherapy.
Atavis
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks