Lloyd Tuckey has published a case of this kind; and the somnambulists employed as clairvoyants by so-called mes-merizers would about come in here. I firmly believe these dangers are much more serious than those previously mentioned.

The safest way of guarding against these dangers is to make some such post-hypnotic suggestion as follows to the subject before waking him: - "Nobody will ever be able to hypnotize you against your will or without your consent; you will never fall into hypnosis against your wish; nobody will be able to suggest anything to you when awake; you need never fear that you will have sense-delusions as you do in hypnosis," etc. The antidote to such dangers is counter-suggestion. Permission to hypnotize should certainly only be granted to persons whose character and knowledge afford a guarantee that they will do no harm, either intentionally or unintentionally.

But it may be objected that though an occasional use of hypnosis may not be hurtful, a long one, involving a repeated induction of the state, might be so. The objection is justifiable; but it might also be made against the use of various other remedies, since we do not yet know whether a long use of them might not endanger health. Experience is the only way to decide such questions. I myself, as well as other investigators, have watched cases in which persons were repeatedly hypnotized for several years without evil results. But apart from this, it will hardly ever be found necessary to hypnotize frequently in such cases; even when the treatment has to be carried out for years, an occasional hypnosis will suffice. Even when for special reasons a patient has to be hypnotized repeatedly for years, a conscientious and experienced physician will be quite able to guard against any possible dangers. We shall always find counter-suggestion the surest preventive of danger.

I do not intend to discuss purely theoretical dangers in detail. Mendel fears stimulation of the cerebral cortex, while Ziemssen and Meynert fear a loss of power of that part. To pay any attention to such a combination of theoretical dangers which are always mutually contradictory, would only land us in fruitless speculations.

In the foregoing I have discussed two objections made to the therapeutic use of hypnosis and suggestion; first, Ewald's assertion that hypnotism should not be called medical treatment; and secondly, that it is too dangerous to allow of its practical use. A third objection to be mentioned is that hypnotic treatment is superfluous. Certainly it is seldom denied that patients do occasionally get better, and are even cured by hypnotic treatment; but it is none the less objected that the same results can be obtained without hypnotic treatment, or that a lasting improvement never ensues.

It is true that many cases in which hypnosis used to be considered necessary can be treated without it nowadays. Other methods of mental treatment constitute the most important substitute for hypnosis, and include not only suggestion in the waking state, but the special instruction of the patient, etc., as well, to which I shall return in the next chapter. And here we must note that psycho-therapeutic treatment without hypnosis is essentially an outcome of hypnotism. It was not until the results of hypnotic suggestion had enabled us to recognize the extent to which human beings, particularly patients, are susceptible to psychic influence that the importance of almost all of these methods of mental treatment was made clear. That this often enables us to dispense with hypnosis in cases in which it was formerly employed, is nevertheless a result of hypnotism. But apart from this, hypnosis is still in a series of cases the quickest and best means of obtaining satisfactory results; and even if new remedies have rendered hypnosis superfluous in many cases, there still remains a no inconsiderable number in which that treatment is indicated.

And it is certainly a fact that even where other remedies prove successful, hypnosis often produces the same results much more speedily, so that if we adhere to the old principle tuto cito et jucunde, hypnotic treatment frequently has the advantage.

The assertion that hypnotic treatment does not produce any lasting cures may be answered as follows. The results are by no means transitory; on the contrary, a large number of lasting cures have been observed and published. I have myself seen many cases where there was no relapse for years. One cannot ask for more. The objection that the improvement may be only temporary is thus not justified. But even were this so we must nevertheless be glad that we have found a way of procuring even temporary relief (Purgotti, Schuster). For instance, in difficulties of menstruation it is a great thing if we can succeed in subduing pain for a time, although we may not be able to prevent its recurrence. If pain returns a new hypnosis may be induced. In any case, therapeutics is not yet so far advanced as to give us the right to reject a remedy because it has often merely a temporary value.

Another objection, closely related to the foregoing, is that hypnotic treatment only affects symptoms, but does not cure the underlying disease. Discussing this point with Binswanger, Richard Schulz says: "If, as in the case before us, we can enable a woman who has been paralyzed for two years to walk, then, even though the hysteria which caused the paralysis remains unaffected, we have obtained an important result,-especially for the patient. There are many other internal complaints - for example, diseases of the heart and chronic diseases of the kidneys accompanied by severe dropsy in which we cannot" remove the cause of the trouble, but we can remove the distressing symptoms produced by dropsy and thereby make the patient's sufferings bearable." The objection raised by Binswanger and others that hypnotic treatment does not cure but only produces a temporary improvement can only influence a superficial observer. A man who has acquired his knowledge of therapeutics by the practice of medicine, and who has kept his mental vision unobscured, knows how seldom disease is cured by any of the so-called scientific remedies.