BBC2 Alternative Therapies: Did hypnotherapy get a fair investigation?

I have just finished watching the BBC2 documentary on hypnotherapy as part of the Alternative Therapies three-part series... and there are so many things that I want to say in response that I don't know where to start...

Firstly, it's great that the BBC wants to investigate the wonderful world of hypnotherapy and how it can be used to help people to acheieve better health and well-being. Brilliant!

But, come on, people at the BBC! If you're going to do a job, do it properly!

The main thrust of the programme and reporter Kathy Sykes' approach seemed to be about bringing a 'rigorous' scientific approach to investigating whether hypnosis and hypnotherapy have a legitimate place in modern medicine.

Well, I am all for some scientific rigour. As someone who spent several years conducting doctoral research in creative therapeutic techniques, looking at the neurophysiology and cognitive science behind altered states of consciousness, including what we call 'trance' states and creative zones, I love to see hypnosis being discussed with scientific rigour.

The only problem is that this BBC programme did not do that! Where was the scientific approach to researching the area?

The programme focused on four different examples of hypnotherapists working with people. In the first example shown, we saw a hypnotherapist working with a policeman in Birmingham to help him to stop smoking. Now I do not want to be unfair here because these programmes are heavily edited but the therapist was using a lot of rather clumsy direct suggestions, and appeared to be reading from a script. Rather unsurprisingly to me, the policeman was still smoking three months later. This did not seem to be a very good example of hypnotherapy being used in smoking cessation.

Also, later in the programme, Kathy Sykes, the presenter, referred to 'some research' she had been looking at that showed that hypnotherapy was no more effective than counselling and advice. Which research is she referring to?

The very comprehensive meta-analysis of research in smoking cessation - which you can read about here - was conducted by Frank Schmidt and Chockalingam Viswesvaran of the University of Iowa and was reported in the New Scientist in October 1992.

It statistically combined the results of more than 600 studies covering almost 72,000 people from America, Scandinavia and elsewhere and showed that, for most smokers, the most effective technique of smoking cessation was hypnosis. In fact, 48 studies covering over 6000 smokers gave an average success rate of 80% for hypnosis. That is a pretty impressive finding.

But back to the programme... We then saw presenter, Kathy Sykes, apparently being 'hypnotised' by a really rather annoying hypnotist. Unfortunately, I can't find any reference to his name anywhere on the BBC web site. But I know that he certainly wouldn't have been able to take me into a nice relaxed but focused state of awareness! He was far too annoying!

I watched amazed as he lolled back in his chair with legs crossed in a supremely 'alpha male' position, looking down on Kathy as he began to bark abrupt direct commands at her to 'float down.' Very odd. Again, I know these programmes are edited - but really he didn't seem to understand anything about establishing rapport, indirect suggestion or hypnotic induction.

After this experience, Kathy reported that she felt rather 'bloody minded' about doing what he'd told her to do. I don't blame her! Direct suggestion of this unskilled kind certainly wouldn't have worked for me either. The hypnotists's response? She just wasn't suggestible enough. What a load of rubbish! He just wasn't a good enough hypnotist!

It was interesting to see the work of Peter Whorwell using hypnosis to treat IBS in Manchester. He seems like a very nice man and is clearly doing good work using suggestion therapy - but his description of 'just droning on, saying nice things to patients' whilst they were in hypnosis was rather disconcerting.

This raises an important point about hypnotherapy. A skilled and well-trained hypnotherapist will not use suggestion therapy alone but will also work using regression therapy. That is, where appropriate, they will use the state of hypnosis to help people to access and process memories, emotions and experiences from their subconscious that may have been contributing to problems and unwanted patterns of behavior.

The programme didn't even mention these two major differences in ways of working with hypnosis. Neither did it consult or involve representatives of the three main professional hypnotherapy bodies here in the UK: the General Hypnotherapy Register (of which I am a member), the National Council for Hypnotherapy and the Hypnotherapy Society. These bodies represent serious practitioners who are concerned with working in a very structured way, meet regularly at professional conferences to discuss research and working practices and who have amassed enormous amounts of experience among them in the most effective ways to use hypnotherapy.

The best bit of the programme came right at the end when we saw a dental operation (tooth extraction and replacement) taking place without anaesthetic in hypnosis. The hypnotherapist was clearly skilled and experienced and this was an excellent example of an everyday hypnotherapy application that could save the NHS millions of pounds if applied to many similar operations. And no drugs or side-effects!

So, come on BBC2! You can do better than this! Let's have a seriously rigorous discussion of hypnotherapy and hypnosis. Professor Kirsch's work in hypnosis and the brain, which was also reported in the programme and which I talked about here last week, is fascinating. Let's hear more of that too.

When we have more and better research into hypnotherapy, we will begin to understand exactly how and what constitutes a good therapeutic application of hypnosis and how to make it available to more and more people.

Phew. Glad I've got all that off my chest!