We will now consider singly the objections made to hypnotic treatment or to suggestive therapeutics.

A chief objection was made by Ewald of Berlin, who "decidedly protested against calling suggestion medical treatment." He did this in the interest of physicians. Forel's reply to him will make it clear what he meant.

"Ewald protested against the expression 'medical treatment by hypnotism.' He said that medical treatment meant medical art and medical knowledge, and that every shepherd-boy, tailor, and cobbler could hypnotize; only self-confidence would be necessary. I think we have much more right to protest against this way of treating a scientific question. Has not medicine drawn a countless number of its remedies from the crudest empiricism, from the traditions of the shepherd-boys ? Cannot every cobbler inject morphia, apply blisters, and give aperients if he has the material ? Yet we do not despise these remedies, nor baths, nor massage, etc. But Professor Ewald deceives himself greatly if he believes that a delicate agent like hypnosis, which directly affects and modifies the highest and most refined activities of our minds, could be manipulated by a shepherd-boy and ought to be handed over to him. Medical science and psychological knowledge, the ability to diagnose and practise, are all necessary to its use. It is true that laymen have succeeded with it, just as charlatans have succeeded, and continue to succeed, in all provinces of medicine.

Should we on that account leave the practice of medicine to them ? Long enough, much too long, science has left the important phenomena of hypnosis to 'shepherd-boys and their like'; it is high time to make up for the delay, and to devote ourselves to a thoroughly scientific examination of the series of phenomena which can complete our views of psychology and of the physiology of the brain. Medical therapeutics must not remain behind when great results are to be obtained. But these results can only be obtained by a thorough study of the proper hypnotic methods."

Ewald's objection amounts essentially to this: hypnosis should not be called medical treatment because it is unscientific and perhaps unprofessional. But this conviction is easily aroused in the case of a remedy we wish to rescue from the charlatans. The novelty of the remedy makes it appear alien to the practices of the medical profession. I have already discussed this point in detail in another work.1 In any case we cannot fail to recognize that they who endeavour to gain the sole use of such a remedy for the medical profession are thereby fighting against quackery, whereas men who, like Ewald, simply set down the use of such remedies as quackery, and therefore to be excluded from medical treatment, are in reality aiding quackery, although perhaps unintentionally. As a matter of fact when doctors emphasized the dangers of hypnosis and claimed that the practice of hypnotic treatment should be restricted to members of the medical profession only, Emil Muschik Droonberg disposed of their claim by referring to Ewald's statement that any shepherd-boy could hypnotize.

Benedikt's objection to the use of hypnotic treatment, because of the mysterious impression it causes, belongs to the same category as Ewald's. But apart from the fact that there is less mystery about the matter than was formerly supposed, it would be perfectly indifferent to a practitioner whether a remedy took effect from the mysterious impression it made, or through suggestion, or through chemico-physical influence. The point is that it does act, not in what manner it acts. Certainly Rosenbach has protested against the use of suggestion in therapeutics, and he is a rational investigator and thoroughly recognizes the importance of psycho-therapeutics, which he was led to appreciate by studying hypnosis. Rosenbach also lays stress on the mysterious character of the impression produced, but his objection to suggestion lies essentially in the fact that he expects better results from other therapeutic measures. Besides, I think I have shown in the theoretical section (p. 267) that a thing is often considered mysterious which is really a phenomenon of every-day occurrence. Moreover, Benedikt recommends, that in order to lessen the impression of mystery, hypnosis should he induced by the use of a magnet.

But as a magnet only acts by suggestion, according to present-day opinion, Benedikt has unwittingly recommended the use of a mysterious agent.

1 Moll, Arztliche Ethik, Stuttgait, 1902, p. 274 et seq.

If I believed that in some cases a mysterious agent would be useful to a patient I should not hesitate to use it; for were I to do so I should be neglecting my duty as a doctor, which is of more importance than any scientific signboard. Naturally a physician should not make use of a remedy the employment of which is contrary to medical ethics; but I am firmly convinced that he has no right to deprive a patient of the benefits of a remedy because he thinks it acts mysteriously. Consequently, I should not hesitate in certain cases to send patients to some miracle-working spring - Lourdes, for example; and, in fact, fifty to sixty patients are yearly sent to Lourdes from the Salpetriere (Constantin James). Charcot has expressed the same opinion in his well-known work La Foi qui gutrit. When questioned about faith-healing, he replied among other things: Elle intiresse d'ailleurs tout midecin, le but essentiel de la midecine etant la guerison des malades sans distinction dans le procede curatif a mettre en ceuvre. It cannot be denied that faith and emotional excitement produce many results at Lourdes. We may well believe Rommelare's statement that the water from Marseilles cured a patient who believed in it.

But even if hypnosis were only effectual from its mysteriousness, its use would not be thereby contra-indicated.

The temporary loss of will can hardly be considered an objection to hypnotic therapeutics from the ethical standpoint, though it has occasionally been brought forward. If it were, we should have to give up the administration of chloroform, for there is loss of will in chloroform narcosis. The main point is to choose a trustworthy experimenter. We only take chloroform from a person whom we can trust to administer the anaesthetic without danger, and whom we believe will take no advantage of the loss of will induced.