The providers of Lightning Process in the SMILE trial were not credentialed health professionals and are not bound by ethical codes.
Esther Crawley’s overdue publication of results from the SMILE trial deserves close scrutiny for lots of reasons. But especially for what is said about the supervision and qualifications of Lightning Process practitioners who delivered the treatment.
Readers can easily gloss over a seemingly straightforward description of these practitioners in the paper. Yet, a little probing and checking of sources should cause some alarm among the parents who agreed to their children participating in the trial.
The details are alarming enough to cause worry about participating in any clinical trial involving Esther Crawley. She does not look after the safety and rights of children in her care.
This trial was approved by a number of committees at Bristol University. Assured by those well-publicized approvals, parents undoubtedly assumed that their children were protected from risks and needless exposure to quack treatments or providers not bound by enforceable ethical codes. The children did not have these protections, which should give pause to anyone contemplating allowing their children to participate in a trial regulated by Bristol University.
LP practitioners have completed a diploma through the Phil Parker Training Institute in Neurolinguistic Programming, Life Coaching and Clinical Hypnotherapy. This diploma is examined through written and practical examinations and is accredited by the British Institute of Hypnotherapy and NLP. Following the diploma, LP practitioners undertake a further course to learn the tools and delivery required for the LP after which they must pass both a practical and written examination. Practitioners undertake supervision and continuous professional development in order to further develop their skills and knowledge. They are regulated by the register of LP practitioners, adhere to a code of conduct and there is a Professional Conduct Committee that oversees complaints and professional practice issues.
Let’s isolate and probe some of these statements.
LP practitioners have completed a diploma through the Phil Parker Training Institute in Neurolinguistic Programming, Life Coaching and Clinical Hypnotherapy.
Comment: This is does not represent anything approaching a degree from an accredited university or training institute. Phil Parker has been sanctioned by the UK Advertising Standards Authority for false claims about treating and even curing complex medical conditions. Yet the SMILE trial presented the Lighting Process as a treatment to the parents and children.
It would be fascinating to debrief the parents to discover what they assumed in consenting to their children’s participating in the trial. Did they think the children were being treated? Were they informed that the ASA forbade billing Lightning Process as a treatment? That the treatment providers were not chartered or qualified medical or mental health providers?
Neurolinguistic Programming has been widely discredited as quackery and is no longer is discussed in the scientific or clinical literatures.
Life Coaching is so vague a term as to be meaningless. There is no regulation or consistent specification of what is done or forbidden to be done in life coaching.
Clinical Hypnotherapy is not a restricted, independently recognized, nor chartered class of provider. Anyone can call themselves a clinical hypnotherapist. Phil Parker’s institute issues meaningless certificates that be hung on providers’ walls to confuse consumers.
This diploma is examined through written and practical examinations and is accredited by the British Institute of Hypnotherapy and NLP.
Comment: Sounds impressive, huh? The ‘written and practical examinations’ involve showing adeptness in delivering a quack treatment that involves making false claims and offering pseudoscientific explanations to patients- messages defined by those who sell the training products. Ability to meet these criteria involves taking trademarked training courses in quackery. Any deficiencies in knowledge or practice that examiners perceive are remedied by taking more courses. Essentially, this is a pyramid scheme from which Phil Parker benefits financially.
Reassured that providers are accredited by “British Institute of Hypnotherapy and NLP?” Go visit the website and you can readily see that it is an extension of Phil Parker’s marketing effort, not something independent or otherwise chartered or regulated. The site offers courses in referrals to people who have completed courses.
At the website a rotating variety of pseudoscientific explanations are provided with claims of dramatic effects of hypnosis that are at odds with the evidence. Visitors are led to believe that hypnotherapy is effective for reducing blood pressure and stopping smoking:
Hypnotherapy can help you kick the habit of smoking into touch for good.
Compare that to what is said by the Cochrane Collaboration:
Does hypnotherapy help people who are trying to stop smoking?
We have not shown that hypnotherapy has a greater effect on six-month quit rates than other interventions or no treatment. There is not enough evidence to show whether hypnotherapy could be as effective as counselling treatment. The effects of hypnotherapy on smoking cessation claimed by uncontrolled studies were not confirmed by analysis of randomized controlled trials.
The site also falsely claims that hypnotherapy can reduce blood pressure. The site is basically an advertisement for exaggerated claims about hypnosis backed by pseudoscientific explanations of how it works.
Hypnotherapists now understood neurology and physiology of using hypnosis and have the evidence of neurosciences support this understanding.
Nonsense. This British Institute of Hypnotherapy and NLP is set up and run by a guy who claims neuroscience, osteopathy and neurolingustic programming explain the effects of the Lightning Process, which are claimed to be physiological, not psychological. Who believes these additional claims about hypnosis are valid?
Practitioners undertake supervision and continuous professional development in order to further develop their skills and knowledge.
But the supervision is in use of a commercial product with a pseudoscientific explanation. So, apparently practitioners are supervised in their willingness and ability to adhere to the scripts they have received as part of products they have purchased. The “continuous professional development” is taking a steady stream of Phil Parker’s training courses. Because his materials are trademarked, no one who is not authorized by Parker to sell his merchandise.
They are regulated by the register of LP practitioners, adhere to a code of conduct and there is a Professional Conduct Committee that oversees complaints and professional practice issues.
There is a financial conflict of interest in Phil Parker offering courses and training and what the ASA has said cannot be described as treatment and then setting up a professional conduct committee is tied directly to his products.
What should parents be able to expect in bringing their children to a recognized, regulated healthcare site, like the NHS? The treatment providers should be professionals licensed by a governmental or independent body separate from any marketing of training. If not fully licensed or regulated professionals, they should be supervised by professionals, such as medical or mental health clinicians.
The class of providers should also be licensed or chartered so that sanctions with legal consequences can be applied for misconduct or unethical behavior. Providers working with children should be held to some ethical standards in terms of the safety and rights of both children and their parents.
None of these features are present in the treatment provided in the SMILE trial.
Christine Fenton, a retired Deputy Head of two high schools in the UK notes she was responsible for child protection in those roles. She expressed this concern about the basic conflict of Lightning Process and tenets of childhood protection:
LP participants are directed to not talk to others about it – keep secrets – to report positively regardless of their internal view is appalling to me. Child Protection has a key tenet ‘secrets are not ok’ – if an adult tells a youngster to keep a secret it is a form of control & creates an environment in which abuse can occur more easily.
Teachers, like other professionals coming in contact with children are required to take courses about child protective services and the duty to report abuse. They are held legally responsible for violation of the associated rules. However, legally, providers of the lightning process are only ordinary citizens, not professionals and are not held responsible in this manner.
In obtaining approval for the conduct of the SMILE trial from Bristol University, Pediatrician Esther Crawley claimed that sessions of the writing process were taped and that she had responsibility for reviewing the tapes. It strains credibility to claim that she actually listened to all the tapes from the study.
But what does it mean for a physician to supervise a quack treatment provided by quack providers who are not being allowed to call what they do treatment? How does Crawley react when physically ill, impaired children are instructed to deny their fatigue and pain to authority figures such as teachers and parents?
Truly mind-boggling to consider.