You are currently viewing Ethical Principles and Practice Standards in Hypnosis, Theoretical Underpinnings

Ethical Principles and Practice Standards in Hypnosis, Theoretical Underpinnings

Current Status
Not Enrolled
Get Started

Ethical Principles and Practice Standards in Hyponosis, Theoretical Underpinnings

Presented by Joel D. Marcus, Psy. D., FAPS, FASCH

Recorded on: Friday, February 7th, 2020

This program, when attended in its entirety, offers 1.5 CEs for Psychologists, and 1.5 BBS California CEUs for LPCCs, LPSW, and LMFTs.

Workshop Description:

This webinar will present to the learner an overview of ethical principles and practices for the use of clinical hypnosis. Multiple theoretical and historical underpinnings of the applications of ethics will be described. A review of ethical dilemmas that a clinician may encounter will be presented.  The ethical use of hypnosis with specific populations and clinical entities will be offered. 

A review of the ethical standards of the American Society of clinical hypnosis, the American psychological association and other providers will occur. The similarities and differences of the different disciplines will be highlighted. 

Learning Objectives:

After attending this presentation, participants will be able to:

  1. Identify and discuss the historical antecedents of ethical decision-making. 
  1. List and discuss theoretical models involved in ethical decision-making. 
  1. Identify and describe possible ethical dilemmas incurred when using clinical hypnosis. 
  1. Negotiate the regulatory and ethical information regarding the use of clinical hypnosis with different populations. 

Program Standards and Goals:

This program meets APA’s continuing education Standard 1.2: Program content focuses on ethical, legal, statutory or regulatory policies, guidelines, and standards that impact psychological practice, education, or research

This program meets APA’s continuing education Goal 2: Program will enable psychologists to keep pace with the most current scientific evidence regarding assessment, prevention, intervention, and/or education, as well as important relevant legal, statutory, leadership, or regulatory issues.

Registration & Fees:

Community members: $65.00

SCEH Members/Faculty: $55.00

Students: $15.00


arton, E. (2007). Situating end-of-life decision making in a hybrid ethical frame. Commun Med, 4(2), 131-140. doi:10.1515/CAM.2007.017 

Braddock, C. H., 3rd. (2013). Supporting shared decision making when clinical evidence is low. Med Care Res Rev, 70(1 Suppl), 129S-140S. doi:10.1177/1077558712460280 

Chang, H. Y., Wallis, M., Tiralongo, E., & Wang, H. L. (2012). Decision-making related to complementary and alternative medicine use by people with Type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs, 21(21-22), 3205-3215. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04339.x 

Drane, J. F. (1988). “Ethical workup” guides clinical decision making. Health Prog, 69(11), 64-67.  

Epstein, R. M. (2013). Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making. Patient Educ Couns, 90(2), 200-206. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.035 

Garcia-Llana, H., Barbero, J., Remor, E., Diaz-Sayas, L., Rodriguez-Rey, R., Del Peso, G., & Selgas, R. (2011). Impact of an interdisciplinary training course on counselling and decision making support for nephrology department professionals. Nefrologia, 31(3), 322-330. doi:10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2011.Apr.10833 

Kelly, B. J., Varghese, F. T., & Pelusi, D. (2003). Countertransference and ethics: a perspective on clinical dilemmas in end-of-life decisions. Palliat Support Care, 1(4), 367-375.  

Miller, D. L., & Bolla, L. R. (1998). Patient values: the guide to medical decision making. Clin Geriatr Med, 14(4), 813-829.  

Mills, A. E., & Spencer, E. M. (2005). Values based decision making: a tool for achieving the goals of healthcare. HEC Forum, 17(1), 18-32.  

Moulton, B., & King, J. S. (2010). Aligning ethics with medical decision-making: the quest for informed patient choice. J Law Med Ethics, 38(1), 85-97. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00469.x 

Saarni, S. I., Hofmann, B., Lampe, K., Luhmann, D., Makela, M., Velasco-Garrido, M., & Autti-Ramo, I. (2008). Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ, 86(8), 617-623.  

Tanner, S., Albisser Schleger, H., Meyer-Zehnder, B., Schnurrer, V., Reiter-Theil, S., & Pargger, H. (2014). [Clinical everyday ethics-support in handling moral distress? : Evaluation of an ethical decision-making model for interprofessional clinical teams.]. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. doi:10.1007/s00063-013-0327-y 

Taylor, M. L. (2001). Ethical issues for psychologists in pain management. Pain Med, 2(2), 147-154. doi:10.1046/j.1526-4637.2001.002002147.x 

Wall. (1991). Ethics–the royal road to legitimacy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 34(2), 73-78.  

Wright, R. A. (1991). Clinical judgment and bioethics: the decision making link. J Med Philos, 16(1), 71-91.


Target Audience: Psychologists, LCSWs, LMFTs, LCPCs, all mental health disciplines, graduate students welcome. Hypnosis practitioners. Members of SCEH and the TCSPP community.

Psychologists. This program, when attended in its entirety, is available for 1.5 continuing education credits. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is committed to accessibility and non-discrimination in its continuing education activities. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is also committed to conducting all activities in conformity with the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles for Psychologists. Participants are asked to be aware of the need for privacy and confidentiality throughout the program. If program content becomes stressful, participants are encouraged to process these feelings during discussion periods. If participants have special needs, we will attempt to accommodate them. Please address questions, concerns and any complaints to There is no commercial support for this program nor are there any relationships between the CE Sponsor, presenting organization, presenter, program content, research, grants, or other funding that could reasonably be construed as conflicts of interest.

MFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs. Course meets the qualifications for 1.5 hour of continuing education credit for MFTs, LPCCs, and/or LCSWs as required by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences. If you are licensed outside of California please check with your local licensing agency to to determine if they will accept these CEUs. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is approved by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) to offer continuing education programming for MFTs, LPCCs, LEPs, and/or LCSWs. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is an accredited or approved postsecondary institution that meets the requirements set forth in Sections 4980.54(f)(1), 4989.34, 4996.22(d)(1), or 4999.76(d) of the Code.

Participation Certificate. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is able to provide students and other participants who simply wish to have documentation of their attendance at the program a participation certificate.

Non Psychologists. Most licensing boards accept Continuing Education Credits sponsored by the American Psychological Association but non-psychologists are recommended to consult with their specific state-licensing board to ensure that APA-sponsored CE is acceptable.

*Participants must attend 100% of the program in order to obtain a Certificate of Attendance.

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology maintains responsibility for this program and its content.