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.

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 able to heal the sick. However, where his fame as a healer was either unknown or discredited, he found no faith and subsequently no cure. The earliest reference to hypnosis is in the Bible, Genesis ii, 21. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept..."

Dr. William Malamud, 86th president of the American Psychiatric Association, in an address delivered at the annual meeting in 1960, stated the following in a paper called "Psychiatric Research: Setting and Motivation":

"During the last few years we have witnessed a growing trend of overemphasizing the value of 'exact' methodology and uniformity of standards. This trend, which could be characterized as a 'cult of objectivity,' has already had an important influence on psychiatric research. It is true that in its emphasis on critical judgment and valid criteria, it has helped to curb unrestrained flights of imagination and sloppy methodology. But the overglorification of objectivity and the insistence on rigidly single standards of acceptable methods have resulted in a concentration on certain phases of the science of human behavior at the expense of other very important ones."

I believe that most individuals have a fairly good understanding of how they came to have the problem that they have. I have yet to encounter the person who protests he has no idea why he doesn't function as he would like to in a certain area. From a practical standpoint, not many have the time nor money required to delve into the unconscious background of the problem. The high cost of treatment is a very real objection and cannot be discounted lightly. People suffering from emotional problems usually suffer financial reverses as well. Who is to help these people? There are very few places in the country where they can receive competent psychiatric help at a reasonable fee. Is there this type of help in your own community? It is only when the individual is destitute that the state provides whatever help it can. However, at this point it's a long hard struggle back to good emotional health.

The National Association for Mental Health and its affiliates issue about 10 million copies of 200 different pamphlets on various aspects of mental health. To assess the value of these pamphlets, 47 mental hygiene experts held a conference at Cornell University. A report on this outstanding conference has been published. It is called "Mental Health Education: A Critique." A feature by Ernest Havemann in the August 8, 1960 issue of Life contains a very worthwhile article on this conference called "Who's Normal? Nobody, But We All Keep On Trying. In Dissent From 'Mental Health' Approach, Experts Decry Futile Search For An Unreal Goal." The following paragraph is taken from the Life article:

"What about psychiatry and psychoanalysis? This is a different matter. Many unhappy and problem-ridden people, though by no means all who have tried it, have profited from psychotherapy. Indeed, all the mental health pamphlets, as a postscript to the self-help methods they advocate, wind up by advising the reader to seek professional care if his problems are serious enough. But the skeptics at Cornell cited statistics which to them show that psychiatric treatment is as remote for the average person as a trip to the moon. Aside from the expense, which most people would find prohibitive, there simply are not enough therapists to go around. The U. S. has around 11,000 psychiatrists and 10,000 clinical psychologists—in