I believe I have come across the same CBS news article that Elise found in class:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hypnosis-no-anesthetic-for-mans-surgery/
Alex Lenkei not only used hypnosis for a hernia surgery in 1996, but also an 83-minute hand surgery in 2008. He claims to have been aware throughout the entire process along with “tugging and pulling” sensations, but felt no pain. A more recent article from the U.K. in 2010 also addresses this alternative to anesthesia, which is apparently called “hypnosedation.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1269903/Would-knife-hypnotist-numb-pain.html
The article makes it sound like an appealing option for individuals for whom anesthesia gives severe and unwelcome side effects and gives a very simplified version for the concept of pain.
A surprising number of cases have utilized hypnosedation, with 5,000 being cited in a Belgian hospital. For individuals who have adverse reactions to traditionally trusted anesthesia, it could be a viable last resort. These sensationalized news pieces for the general public are hardly official clinical trials that can prove the efficacy of the procedure and the very idea still begs the question as to whether or not all individuals can be susceptible to the hypnosis, and what exactly are the criteria for a hypnotist to be qualified to assist in a medical procedure. It seems to require a sense of faith and absence of skepticism, of which everyone should have a healthy dose; otherwise, it could potentially cause a nocebo effect.
There is an article that supports the use and advantages of hypnosedation in thyroid and parathyroid procedures. Despite my own skepticism, I would like to believe in this possible alternative. Monks are famous for their control over mechanisms such as body temperature and pulse, it may not be too far-fetched for a hypnotist to help guide an individual to temporarily separate themselves from the sensation of pain.
Good stuff from you once again, great writing.
As has been mentioned by other people, the biggest issue with hypnosedation is that of susceptibility, but it is a good alternative for those not willing to undergo traditional anesthesia. I never realized the potential for someone to be aware and responsive in a more active way when under hypnosis and always thought of it as a really passive situation for the recipient of hypnosis. I wonder if being more aware of the processes and seeming to have more control of yourself during the procedure can contribute to the reports of lower pain levels and quicker healing times in individuals. There is more autonomy for the patient in the healing process which may alleviate the stress or anxiety one feels toward a procedure because they do not have to only trust the physician doing the procedure. It is challenging the idea of the physician as the ultimate authority in the healing process by introducing new people in the relationship and distributing the responsibility . Physicians have to be willing to relinquish some of their control in the procedure and trust that the patient is sufficiently trained in hypnosis adding a new dimension to the provider-patient relationship. I think it would be beneficial to find ways to incorporate hypnosedation into treatment because of the reported lower pain levels and quicker healing times, but I do not think it can be an adequate treatment on its own for everyone because not everyone will be sufficiently predisposed to undergoing hypnosis.
I am interested in how this story contrasts with the recent news of a young girl who has been hospitalized against her will in a psychiatric unit, without her parents, for over a year, because western physicians believe she is making up her illness- or suffering from a somatoform disorder, as psychologists commonly call it. While the physicians who before the hospitalization were treating the young girl for physical symptoms spent much time and effort to understand her disorder (what they call Mitochondrial disease), other physicians who placed her in a psychiatric unit instead spent only four days with her. See this article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristy-balcells/first-do-no-harm-how-we-f_b_4843997.html
The reason this seemingly unrelated story bares such relevance to hypnosedation is that “psychosomatisizing” is the same principle many believe to be behind hypnosedation- the power of the brain to alter the body’s physical state, including imperviousness (or susceptibility) to pain. However, western physicians are hesitant, at the least, to disregard hypnosedation for just that reason- they think patients are somehow falsifying this experience. How can the same experience, manifested in opposite ways, have such drastically different effects on western physicians? Why is a conversion “disorder,” relabeled as a trained ability to elevate oneself from feelings of pain, but physicians are incredibly quick to diagnose a patient with the disorder over physical illness?
I have always been skeptical of hypnosis. I think this was largely due to the dramatic stage performances and theater that often accompany it. However, watching the movie of the operations was eye opening and framed hypnosis in a completely different light than I had seen it before. Specifically I saw hypnosis in action in a highly controlled medical setting. Linh and Elise’s points relating mediation to hypnosis made the idea of hypnosedation seem more plausible to me. I’ve seen the famous pictures of monks performing self-immolation while meditating as political protests. Could the same detached state of mind and self-control not be reached using hypnosis as a form of anesthesia?
I have to wonder, however, if this hypnosedation would work on people who were skeptical, as I still somewhat am. One of the difficulties with testing this is that due to current medical conventions, hypnosedation is only performed on voluntary participants who already accept the idea of hypnosis. After doing some research on this, I found the following article that presents an interesting view of hypnosis: http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/uncommon-hypnosis/skepticism.html
This article suggests that people reach a hypnotized state of mind every day without realizing it. For example, getting caught in a daydream where you lose track of time has many similarities to the detached state many have while hypnotized. REM sleep is also suggested to be a similar state of mind as when hypnotized, and hypnotists even use methods to induce REM-like eye motions such as swinging a pendulum. Due to these similarities, hypnosis could potentially work on people who don’t believe in its effects.
Although I still have many questions about the widespread use of hypnosedation, I think it is something that should be explored further. The potential benefits of using hypnosedation in surgeries are significant, and shouldn’t be ignored on principle by skeptics like me.
Your last point about monks is exactly what I thought when I read this article. I believe hypnosis to be a thing that works because of how powerful the mind is. It is not necessarily a “supernatural” or spiritual phenomena–it is just changing the way your mind is working and changing how your neurons are reacting to environmental stimuli, which is a scientific, physical thing.
Just yesterday I was talking to someone about people who hold world records for different things. I began to wonder who held the record for holding their breath underwater and if they had special methods in order to do it. So, I did some research, and sure enough I found the record holder of 22 minutes, accredits his achievement to “meditation under water”, which combines breathing techniques and imprinted mental imagery. The article talking about his record and techniques can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/breath-world-record-stig-severinsen_n_2144734.html.
I have also been very intrigued with the monks in the Himalayas who were supposedly able to dry wet sheets wrapped around their naked bodies during very cold conditions for mountain ceremonies. A recent scientific study has researched this, and found that this meditation technique is in fact extremely effective at raising your body temperature, which in turn helps boost immunity, increase alertness, increase reaction time, and increase cognitive function (like memory and attention span). That research article can be found here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058244
If people can do such powerful things to their bodies by just changing the way they are thinking and breathing, there is no doubt in my mind that hypnosis can induce such effects. I hope that more research on these subjects will be conducted soon, because I believe we have barely scratched the surface of our understanding.
The first time I came across the idea of hypnosedation was in Aldous Huxley’s final novel, Island, in which Huxley imagines a utopian society that integrates Eastern and Western medical, religious, and psychological practices. This account of hypnosedation, though fictional, is interesting because it illustrates a case in which hypnotism was not only the preferred mode of anesthetic, but indeed the only possible mode.
This is because the patient in the novel had a tumor in his throat that had spread so much that it blocked half his throat and his nose, causing him to wake up choking whenever he fell asleep. In such a case, conventional anesthetic would literally kill him. With or without conventional surgery he would die. The physician called in to help drew upon his knowledge of hypnotism and animal magnetism to prepare the patient hypnotically over the course of a few weeks.
The day before surgery, the physician performed a final rehearsal surgery, which included instructions for the patient to cough just enough to clear away some of the blood during surgery, coupled with reminders that he would not choke as was usually the case. Needless to say, the actual surgery was successful.
Again, though this particular account was fictional, Huxley was no stranger to the cutting edge scientific and psychological developments of his day and his mention of this in his utopian novel demonstrates that he believed hypnosedation was both plausible and in some specific cases, as in his own fictional one, downright miraculous.
Hi Linh – maybe this would help: Tefikow, S., J. Barth, S. Maichrowitz, A. Beelmann, B. Strauss, and J. Rosendahl. “Efficacy of Hypnosis in Adults Undergoing Surgery or Medical Procedures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Clinical Psychology Review 33, no. 5 (July 2013): 623–636. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.03.005.
The article is available on Owlspace and here: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.rice.edu/science/article/pii/S0272735813000457/pdfft?md5=c742b4d7cfff25947392c663613be161&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735813000457-main.pdf
My main concern with this article is that suggestibility to hypnosis was one of the parameters the investigators did not explore. I would assume that this factor would be a critically important one since I also assume that not all individuals are susceptible to hypnosis, if at all. This would also beg the question as to how hypnotic suggestibility is measured, since it would most likely be a quality decided upon by the hypnotist; I would not know how to objectively measure suggestibility but it would be an essential criteria if hypnosis ever became a more viable alternative for anesthesia. While promising, there is a clear lack of a structure of assurance.