1892 BMA Resolution on Hypnotism and Its Reception in Medical Education

Summary. In 1892 the British Medical Association (BMA) formally acknowledged the therapeutic value of hypnotism. Yet, despite this institutional recognition, hypnosis remained marginal in university and medical-school curricula for decades. This explainer outlines the 1892 resolution, the BMA’s later (1955) reaffirmation, and evidence that mainstream medical education largely ignored hypnosis through much of the twentieth century.

The 1892 BMA finding

In 1892 a BMA committee investigated hypnotism and concluded that, “as a therapeutic agent, hypnotism is frequently effective in relieving pain, procuring sleep, and alleviating many functional ailments.”^[1] The statement helped to separate medical hypnotism from Mesmerism and stage practice by framing hypnosis as a legitimate, empirically observable clinical procedure rather than an occult force. Although the committee recognized clinical usefulness, it also drew attention to the need for proper medical oversight and cautioned against untrained use.^[1]

From endorsement to limited action

Contemporary historical analyses note that the BMA did not follow its 1892 committee’s enthusiasm with sustained policy action. The hypnosis committee was not retained, and the Association did not systematically integrate hypnosis into medical training at the time. As one peer-reviewed history puts it, despite the committee’s positive assessment, the BMA “decided against adopting its recommendation for further investigation,” and hypnosis did not enter the mainstream therapeutic canon in that era.^[2]

Renewed attention and the 1955 BMA report

Mid-century clinical research and practice revived interest. In 1955 a BMA subcommittee again reviewed the medical use of hypnotism and reported in the British Medical Journal that hypnosis has “a definite, if small, place in orthodox medicine,” emphasizing appropriate indications and safeguards.^[3] Crucially, this report recommended that all medical students should be instructed in the possibilities, limitations, and risks of hypnotism as a form of therapy—explicitly framing hypnosis education as a curricular responsibility.^[4] The 1955 publication also reproduced the 1892 statement in an appendix, underscoring continuity with the earlier BMA finding.^[5]

Why universities still largely ignored hypnosis

Despite these authoritative statements, integration into mainstream curricula remained limited for decades. Several factors contributed:

• Disciplinary boundaries and stigma. Hypnosis retained associations with popular entertainment and with earlier Mesmeric claims, making faculties cautious about granting curricular time in already crowded programs. Historical scholarship documents this reputational barrier persisting well into the twentieth century.^[2]
• Patchy evidence and safety concerns (by period standards). The 1955 BMA report affirmed usefulness but also stressed the need for clinical oversight and training, which may have discouraged ad-hoc teaching in general medical courses until more standardized methods emerged.^[3][4]
• Lack of mandated curriculum standards. Even after 1955, no central requirement compelled UK or other Western medical schools to add dedicated hypnosis modules. In practice, teaching often appeared only in electives or specialist training rather than in core undergraduate curricula.^[2]

Empirical indicators of limited teaching

Surveys and reviews illustrate the slow uptake of formal instruction. For example, a PubMed-indexed survey of U.S. and Canadian dental schools (1995) found that complete courses in hypnosis were uncommon and had not increased since earlier counts in the 1970s and 1980s, indicating a long-standing pattern of marginalization even in fields (like dentistry) where hypnotic analgesia might be relevant.^[6] Professional bodies later offered balanced scientific definitions and ethical guidance—for instance, the British Psychological Society’s 2001 report provided a careful, evidence-based overview of hypnosis and its risks and applications—but such documents did not, by themselves, translate into universal medical-school coverage.^[7]

Conclusion

The record shows a clear contrast: in 1892 the BMA recognized that hypnotism had legitimate therapeutic value, and in 1955 it explicitly recommended that medical students receive instruction. Nevertheless, for most of the twentieth century, medical schools and universities did not broadly embed hypnosis in standard curricula. This combination of institutional recognition and curricular neglect directly supports the statement: “Even though the BMA recognized the validity of hypnosis, medical schools and universities largely ignored the subject.” Placing a citation to the 1892 committee’s conclusion, the 1955 BMA recommendation, and historical analyses of the limited educational uptake after that sentence will accurately ground the claim.

References

1. British Medical Association Committee (1892). Statement on hypnotism (reproduced text). See digitized extract: “The Committee are of opinion that as a therapeutic agent hypnotism is frequently effective…” https://www.rebhp.org/articles/1892.pdf (accessed 29 Oct 2025).
2. Chettiar, T. (2012). “Looking as Little Like Patients as Persons Well Could…” Medical History 56(3): 351–371. Notes that the BMA did not adopt the 1892 committee’s recommendations and that hypnosis failed to enter mainstream therapy at the time. Open-access via NIH/PMC: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3426986/.
3. British Medical Association Subcommittee (1955). “Medical Use of Hypnotism.” British Medical Journal (supplement). Contemporary BMJ items discussing the report are accessible (e.g., BMJ 1955 correspondence referencing the subcommittee’s findings): https://www.bmj.com/content/2/6136/571.2.full.pdf.
4. “Hypnotism’s medical value: from the archive, 22 April 1955.” The Guardian archive note summarizing the BMA report’s recommendation that all medical students should be instructed in hypnotism’s possibilities, limitations, and dangers: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/apr/22/hypnotosm-medical-value-1955.
5. Secondary citations to the BMJ supplement reproducing the 1892 statement: e.g., “Special Report on Hypnotherapy” (bibliography): https://www.imhlk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Special-Report-on-Hypnotherapy.pdf (notes: BMJ Supplement, 23 April 1955, pp. 190–193, Appendix X).
6. Clarke, J.H. (1996). “Teaching clinical hypnosis in U.S. and Canadian dental schools.” Journal of the American College of Dentists 63(4): 47–50. PubMed record: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8936708/.
7. British Psychological Society (2001). The Nature of Hypnosis (Working Party Report). PDF: https://www.ukhypnosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Nature-of-Hypnosis_0.pdf.