Hypnotherapists in Australia - Case Study Example

Case Study Name Institution Tutor Date Introduction Hypnotherapists in Australia fall into the category of unregistered health practitioners, comprising of individuals offering health services but not within the Health Practitioner Regulation Law (Health Care Complaints Commission, 2011). However, in three Australian States, namely Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, health regulatory bodies are empowered to sanction such practitioners (Holmes et al., 2014 ). From time to time, the authorities have to handle violations relating to practitioners, and it is noticeable that the sexual exploitation of women does not attract very serious sanctions. This paper offers a discussion of the legal, ethical and social dimensions of such violations in relation to a selected case study. Case Study: The 'Erotic Therapist’ Joe Levonian was a qualified hypnotherapist and nursing student running a practice named Hypnotic Solutions in Balgowlah. He appeared before the Health Care Complaints Commission accused of having sex with a female patient in February 2011, claiming that it was part of the treatment for her smoking addiction. As part of the addiction therapy, Levonian inappropriately touched the client and on another occasion offered to give her a massage for relaxation. The massage however turned sensual and they ended up having sex which she admitted she had agreed to, but it later affected her emotions negatively. In the course of investigations into the event, it was discovered that Levonian had illegally advertised that he was conducting a research on anorgasmia and had even acquired two volunteer women who had agreed to his rather intrusive study in which he would fondle and administer erotic massages on them. He had indicated that the research process could provide healing for the participants’ problem. When the two were contacted, they reported that Levonian would go overboard and seemingly want to have sex with them. Levonian admitted the offense before the commission and expressed his regret and acknowledged that he had realized his mistake immediately afterwards. In his defense, he claimed to have been undergoing reactive depression that caused the errors in judgment he displayed. It was however ruled that he had gone beyond his professional boundaries and by his conduct, shown that he should not attend to members of the public without supervision. His said research was completely unauthorized and was therefore in his personal interest. He had also failed to show his subjects that he could be trusted to stick to the procedures and his activities were not done at an impersonal level as would be expected. Consequently, he was barred from practicing for two years in a ruling handed on December 19 2011. The Legal Element Levonian engaged in consensual sex with the female adult clients. This took away the criminal element from the conduct. However, what he did amounted to malpractice in relation to professional statutes for instance the Unregistered Health Practitioners’ Code of Conduct. His use of limited hypnosis-related qualifications as grounds to deceive unknowing patients that he was capable of treating sexual problems, which he knew he could not contravened Clause 3(2) (b). He had further carried out treatment that he termed as research without getting any approval from authorities. He had made unsubstantiated claims that his ‘research’ was capable of treating anorgasmia, as a result of which unsuspecting clients ended up believing that they were participants in a genuine process of treatment or research, and this is against Clause 3(2) (b1). Levonian claimed to be able to treat clients yet he fully knew that he did not have any experience in the treatment or cure of sexual dysfunction against Clause 3 (2) (c). He was not supposed to engage in this area of practice and had not received any relevant training (HCC, 2011). A hypnotherapist is expected to maintain competence all through their working time and avoid causing any harm upon the client in the process of therapy. Professional boundaries have to be maintained. His act of engaging in sexual contact with his client already amounted to a violation of the Unregistered Health Practitioners’ Code of Conduct Clause 13. The misrepresentation of qualification and experience was contrary to the code’s Clause 12. In advertising his research, Levonian claimed to be capable of treating the condition, and that the ultimate goal of the research was to treatment of a condition as he had done it before. He had therefore acted as a health practitioner and was subject to the Health Care Complaints Act (Australian Hypnotherapists Association, 2012). Levonian’s two year prohibition of services was cited under The Health Complaints Act (1993)’s Section 41A (2) (a) (ii) (HCC, 2011). The Ethical Element Any kind of professional therapy does not include sex, sexual behavior, contact or verbal advances (McAuliffe, 2014). What Levonian did was therefore illegal and unethical. Even after the end of therapy there has to be a considerable lapse of time before it can be considered possible. Such contact harms the patient. This is due to the exploitation of the patient by Levonian for fulfillment of his own desires, and also from the loss of objectivity on the therapist’s part, an aspect that is essential for proper therapy. According to AHA (2012), every therapist is educated and trained to know that such a move is not appropriate and may lead to cancellation of their license. The therapist is respected and trusted. According to Health Care Complaints Commission (2011), one who exploits such trust for their own benefit is therefore abusing the patient. Furthermore, when sexual involvement arises, it marks an end to genuine therapy. When one is exposed to such abusive behavior, they are likely to undergo harmful and long-lasting psychological and emotional effects. There is disruption or even ruining of friendships and family life. Therapy is supposed to be a learning experience that is guided. The patients should be helped to identify the answers to the problems they have and feel better about life and themselves. No patient should be threatened or intimidated by the therapist's behavior. A therapeutic relationship is special and characterized by a lot of trust and vulnerability. In Levonian’s view therefore, the sexual exploitation that occurred violated the boundaries and roles in therapy. This is because it shifted from the patients’ clinical needs to the therapist’s personal desires. Roles were reversed so that the patient ended being of use to the therapist instead of the therapist helping the patient. The basic ethical, legal and clinical boundaries that needed to prevent the use of patients for experimentation, sexual pleasure, control or relief were therefore violated. A therapist needs to have the competence or mastery of his task, in which case Levonian did not, as he was treating sexual dysfunction without relevant qualifications. He also needs to be accountable and maintain public trust. While social relationships may be complex and interact at various levels, there also has to be space between clients and professionals. This ensures control in the power differences between the two parties and therefore a safe interaction founded on the needs of the client. A therapist has the ethical obligation of caring for the patient with benevolence, kindness and confidentiality. In this trusted and privileged relationship, the patient’s needs are to be addressed and not the therapist’s (Aravind et al., 2012). Boundaries are defined by respect for the patient’s dignity. McAuliffe (2014) explains that the patient’s choices and goals are to be respected and trust and good faith upheld in everything that the therapist does. The therapist must ensure that there is no exploitative situation that will lead to his personal gain hence damaging principles of abstinence and neutrality. The therapist and not the patient is the one to ensure that there are no boundary violations take place. If any violation takes place, they have the responsibility of transfer the client to a colleague. The Professional Element Levonian’s actions were unprofessional and against the basic expectations from a practitioner. According to the Australian Hypnotherapists Association (AHA) (2012), sex with patients is never permitted in any circumstance. The client’s psychological well-being is more important than the research in which he or she is participating. In Levonian’s case however, his interests were above the patients’. In addition, members are expected to be completely open and honest about the nature and purpose of the research that is being carried out. Levonian gave false information so as to attract participants to his study which was still unauthorized. Touching a client, as Levonian did already constitutes a malpractice. This is because touch is a complex, intimate form of communication that indicates sexuality at times. Touching clients therefore requires a lot of caution, considering factors for instance gender and age. In this case Levonian went overboard and was touching unexpected parts of the patient’s body, making it definite erotic touching (Aravind et al., 2012). A good professional has the responsibility of ensuring the client’s safety. He should prevent any kind of psychological, emotional or physical harm in the course of therapy, unlike what happened, especially in the emotional problems that the accuser underwent. Just like any other profession, exploiting a client, whether emotionally, sexually, financially or any other manner is unacceptable (McAuliffe, 2014). The AHA expects members to act in ways that will not undermine the confidence of the public in themselves or the profession in general. What Levonian did was however in contravention to this, as it was likely to cause concern that therapists could not be trusted especially with female clients as they would take advantage of them. The case was likely to cause a ridicule of the profession in general. On competence, the code requires that the therapist attains the appropriate competence level before engaging in anything and should not cause clients to believe that he or she offers a service that is not in fact available, because this will lead the client to not seeking better assistance elsewhere. Levonian deceived his clients that he could handle sexual dysfunction yet he had no qualifications to do so. His sexual massage was supposedly part o a research project which was illegitimate and was found to be lacking any clinical basis (AHA, 2012). Societal Dimension to the Problem Although only a small minority of therapists engages in sexual exploitation of clients, it was unsurprising that it was against women in this case. Another notable feature was that the offenses, which are serious, attracted only a temporary suspension. It may be argued that the abuse in Levonian’s case may not be linked to culture but rather on his individual decision and thought out plan. It may also be obvious that it is the individual who committed the act, and it is not even a common occurrence in the cultural setting within which he exists. However, being a conscious decision, it may still be argued that such decisions are determined by cultural factors among other influences. According to Andersen & Taylor (2008), the human being operates within cultures and cannot get out of them. Being a man raised in a cultural setting, attitudes towards women could easily play a role in conduct and judgment. Levonian was a person in a position of authority over his clients and seemingly was ready to satisfy his sexual desires by tricking and using them. According to Wall (2014), the society is one that seemingly normalizes sexual assault, especially against females. There is generally an element of prevalent norms attitudes and media tend to normalize, condone, encourage or even excuse such kinds of violence. Wall (2014) explains that there is usually the objectification of women and presentation of social relations as a kind of war between the sexes. This results in dehumanization that further results in any sexual violence against women being somewhat tolerated. Sexism is a reality in society and although it does not advocate for rape, still contributes to it by affecting the socialization process of boys into men. Mostly the sexism in society seems to lay value on women mainly in terms of the extent to which they are desirable to heterosexual men. This is well expressed in advertising and media in general. Sexual relationships both in shared conversations and media are shown to be ones in which the male is a predator and female the prey. Basing on this, a person like Levonian who was in the privileged position of authority over vulnerable subjects took up his aggressive role of male predator to achieve whatever he wanted. According to Holmes et al. (2014), gender roles generally tend to be rigid within the society in general. The effect of this is that the society ends up enabling disrespect of roles that are gender-diverse. This enables objectification of female bodies. While the feminist view of rape often portrays women as victims, some males are also usually cited as victims. However, the reality is that femininity is often dehumanized, and resulted in violence and defensive defensive homophobia against men who are considered not to be masculine enough by fellow men. Male rape victims end up being feminized and like the female rape victims, end up ignored or considered not so important. The reality remains that like in most other cultures, sexual exploitation of women in the Australian context just like most societies is facilitated by misogyny. Rape is mostly a woman’s issue. According to Wall (2014), the rape of an individual amounts to a limitation, degradation and cause of fear for many others of the same gender. A large number of females have to limit how they behave due to the fear of sexual violence. Unlike them however, males do not. Sexual violence and exploitation therefore acts as a powerful tool by which women are generally left subordinate to the men. This is in spite of the fact that a majority of men do not exploit women, and most women are also not subjected to such exploitation. Sexual exploitation of women has for long been linked to beliefs of women being lesser than men. Historically, in virtually every culture they were denied rights such as education and voting and in marriage could be easily exchanged, being their fathers’ property. Sexual violations against vulnerable women arise from society. Such exploitation is related to power. It is an abuse of power arising from power imbalances between victims and perpetrators. It also serves to reinforce the imbalance within the relationship and between genders. The society is male-dominated and this domination is in a way enacted through sexual exploitation of women. Just like in most of the world, the Australian society is characterized by male occupation of the most powerful positions. Andersen & Taylor (2008) suggest that this has led to creation of patriarchal societies where men establish the laws and rules, and these are structured in a manner that upholds the power of men. There is consequently structural and systemic sexism against women and this causes greater vulnerability or perceived weakness and therefore exposure to sexual violations. There are phrases like "boys will be boys", and these are well accepted all over. Interrogation of a sexual violation incident will also involve for instance either conscious or unconscious need to know how short or the much cleavage that was visible on the woman’s clothing. Having taken alcohol, sexual and dating habits are also checked, implying the belief that the woman could have provoked what happened to her. Sexual violation and its supporting attitudes are not entirely individual as they tend to be learned (Henry & Powell, 2014). Shoham et al. (2010) recommend that to change them, culture has to be adjusted, in addition to the factors that shape it. One of the ways is to change how boys and girls are raised, how man-woman relationships are portrayed in popular culture and media and the positions that leaders in various positions of authority take on the matter. Change can only occur through addressing the source. Otherwise, with a case that is as serious as Levonian’s getting such a light punishment, society will remain the bearer of blame. Conclusion Joe Levonian’s case is a clear example of malpractice by a therapist who decides to willfully prey on his clients. He tricked one woman that he could treat smoking addiction through sexual activity and tricked others into an unauthorized ‘research’ in which he sexually abused them. What he did was entirely unethical, unprofessional and against administrative statutes. However, the punishment he got was very light. This may be a symptom of the social and cultural values that trivialize sexual exploitation, which naturally affects women most. Structural and institutional frameworks have ensured the objectification of women and minimal response to their abuse. This can only be changed through an attitude and cultural readjustment. References Andersen, M and Taylor, H. (2008). Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. Belmont: Thomson Learning Aravind, V, Krishnaram, V and Thasneem, Z. (2012). Boundary Crossings and Violations in Clinical Settings. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. Vol. 34 (1): 21-24 Aston, H. (2012). Two-year ban for 'Erotic' Therapist. Retrieved on 7 February 2015 from Australian Hypnotherapists Association. (2012). Code of Ethics. Retrieved on 6 February 2015 from Health Care Complaints Commission. (2011). Statement of Decision Regarding Complaints against Mr. Joe Levonian. Retrieved on 7 February 2015 from Henry, N and Powell, A. (2014). Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture. London: Palgrave McMillan Holmes, D, Hughes, K and Julian, R. (2014). Australian Sociology. Sydney: Pearson Australia McAuliffe, D. (2014). Interprofessional Ethics: Collaboration in the Social, Health and Human Services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Shoham, S, Knepper, P and Kett, M. (2010). International Handbook of Criminology. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Wall, Liz. (2014). Gender Equality and Violence against Women: What’s the Connection? Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault Read More

The Legal Element Levonian engaged in consensual sex with the female adult clients. This took away the criminal element from the conduct. However, what he did amounted to malpractice in relation to professional statutes for instance the Unregistered Health Practitioners’ Code of Conduct. His use of limited hypnosis-related qualifications as grounds to deceive unknowing patients that he was capable of treating sexual problems, which he knew he could not contravened Clause 3(2) (b). He had further carried out treatment that he termed as research without getting any approval from authorities.

He had made unsubstantiated claims that his ‘research’ was capable of treating anorgasmia, as a result of which unsuspecting clients ended up believing that they were participants in a genuine process of treatment or research, and this is against Clause 3(2) (b1). Levonian claimed to be able to treat clients yet he fully knew that he did not have any experience in the treatment or cure of sexual dysfunction against Clause 3 (2) (c). He was not supposed to engage in this area of practice and had not received any relevant training (HCC, 2011).

A hypnotherapist is expected to maintain competence all through their working time and avoid causing any harm upon the client in the process of therapy. Professional boundaries have to be maintained. His act of engaging in sexual contact with his client already amounted to a violation of the Unregistered Health Practitioners’ Code of Conduct Clause 13. The misrepresentation of qualification and experience was contrary to the code’s Clause 12. In advertising his research, Levonian claimed to be capable of treating the condition, and that the ultimate goal of the research was to treatment of a condition as he had done it before.

He had therefore acted as a health practitioner and was subject to the Health Care Complaints Act (Australian Hypnotherapists Association, 2012). Levonian’s two year prohibition of services was cited under The Health Complaints Act (1993)’s Section 41A (2) (a) (ii) (HCC, 2011). The Ethical Element Any kind of professional therapy does not include sex, sexual behavior, contact or verbal advances (McAuliffe, 2014). What Levonian did was therefore illegal and unethical. Even after the end of therapy there has to be a considerable lapse of time before it can be considered possible.

Such contact harms the patient. This is due to the exploitation of the patient by Levonian for fulfillment of his own desires, and also from the loss of objectivity on the therapist’s part, an aspect that is essential for proper therapy. According to AHA (2012), every therapist is educated and trained to know that such a move is not appropriate and may lead to cancellation of their license. The therapist is respected and trusted. According to Health Care Complaints Commission (2011), one who exploits such trust for their own benefit is therefore abusing the patient.

Furthermore, when sexual involvement arises, it marks an end to genuine therapy. When one is exposed to such abusive behavior, they are likely to undergo harmful and long-lasting psychological and emotional effects. There is disruption or even ruining of friendships and family life. Therapy is supposed to be a learning experience that is guided. The patients should be helped to identify the answers to the problems they have and feel better about life and themselves. No patient should be threatened or intimidated by the therapist's behavior.

A therapeutic relationship is special and characterized by a lot of trust and vulnerability. In Levonian’s view therefore, the sexual exploitation that occurred violated the boundaries and roles in therapy. This is because it shifted from the patients’ clinical needs to the therapist’s personal desires. Roles were reversed so that the patient ended being of use to the therapist instead of the therapist helping the patient. The basic ethical, legal and clinical boundaries that needed to prevent the use of patients for experimentation, sexual pleasure, control or relief were therefore violated.

Read More