Many psychiatrists and psychologists explain hypnosis by saying that the patient wishes to enter the state to relive all the unconscious desires and phantasies of childhood. For this purpose the hypnotist is regarded as the parent—either a stern father or a kind mother—whichever one the patient loved more. Another view is that the patient desires a ‘magical’ cure and regards the hypnotist as a sort of powerful magician. By submitting himself to the hypnotist he identifies himself with this person and so basks in the reflected glory.

An even more doubtful theory is that which supposes that the hypnotized person acts as he does merely because he wishes to behave like a hypnotized person. Apart from the fact that many people are easily hypnotized without having ever witnessed or read about hypnotism, it is exceedingly unlikely that subjects would be willing to bear severe pain, for instance, just for the doubtful pleasure of acting like hypnotized persons.

Scientific tests have shown that hypnotized patients really do not feel pain and that they can stand, for instance, almost ten times the amount of electric current which a person in the normal waking state could bear.

Such a doubtful theory is reminiscent of the opinion voiced by the Calcutta Medical Journal many years ago. This described Esdaile’s patients, who had undergone the most severe major operations quite painlessly under mesmerism, as a ‘set of hardened and determined impostors’.

It is astonishing the lengths to which many otherwise learned people will go in their efforts to belittle hypnotism. Even today there are many bigoted people who adopt the attitude that even if it can do good, hypnotism should not be used.

In 1842 Mr. Ward, a surgeon, reported the painless amputation of a leg under the influence of mesmerism. Instead of welcoming a method which could relieve the agony of surgery, the report was greeted with ridicule by the Society, which included such eminent men as Sir Benjamin Brodie and Mr. Lister. The astonishing resolution was moved and carried that all mention of the case should be erased because, if the account was true and the man really felt no pain, then it was unworthy of consideration! Pain, it was said, was a wise provision of Nature, and patients were all the better for suffering pain while their surgeons were operating!

This may be regarded as a far cry from these modern times; and certainly there are few surgeons, if any, who would agree with the opinions of the Society regarding the value of anaesthesia. Unfortunately, however, there are only too many medical men who would recoil in horror at the idea of using hypnotism even in medical or nervous cases, let alone in order to remove pain.

It has been proved over and over again that hypnosis is a very simple, completely harmless, and effective method of obtaining painless childbirth—in fact, it has been described as the only completely safe anaesthetic.

Nevertheless, although Bills are produced in Parliament, and various women’s organizations are continually agitating for a simple method of analgesia in childbirth, the suggestion that hypnotism should be used is received with either ridicule or superstitious awe. People with this mentality, of course, do not find it difficult to believe in the theory that the hypnotized person is doing nothing more than acting a part. Those with practical experience of hypnotism do not regard this theory seriously.