As a Hypnotherapist who took my daughter (who is a mother) to a full 2 day course in Hypnobirthing run by Katharine Graves ? Day One with one group and Day Two with a different group ? as my daughter is interested in doing a course and running Hypnobirthing in her area and so wanted to see it in action, I cannot speak as a mother. However I can speak as a father and hypnotherapist; also with decades of instructing in a number of other subjects behind me; as we went on two days, I saw two different sets of people which gave a fair cross section of opinion. These ranged from professional couples to in one case a medical doctor couple, and nearly all had come upon recommendation from others who had attended Katharine's courses.
As therefore an objective onlooker I would like to make some points. Firstly I was highly impressed by the course and in some ways more importantly the atmosphere Katharine brought to it. Secondly everyone I spoke to was hugely enthusiastic and full of praise. Thirdly, one was a second time mother coming again after her excellent experience with her first baby. It strikes me that all those people could not be wrong. From someone who has both practised hypnotherapy and instructed on hundreds of courses on varying subjects, I was impressed with how the course was run in all aspects.
I only became involved in this particular thread for one reason: I purely by chance today did a Google search to find a local hypnobirther in Devon where I live and came across this site. When I saw what had been written, how inaccurate and illogical it was, and how unfair to Katharine Graves I felt I should comment on some of the remarks to establish balance.
Comment: "personally as a HypnoBirthing mum three times over AND a teacher I'd avoid 2 day courses like the plague though."
Response: "Avoid like the plague" is a disgraceful and insulting phrase designed to give the impression that such a course is dangerous. I would never use such language in civilised debate.
---
Comment: "having experienced the training myself as a pregnant mum and now having taught over 300 couples I am of the firm belief that 2 day long courses are nowhere near as effective"
Response: Katharine has personally given birth to 4 children, has spent 5 years in HypnoBirthing practise, having trained under Marie Mongan both in the UK and again in Dublin in order to reinforce the initial training and has given courses to almost certainly greater numbers than any other hypnobirther in the UK, using both course lengths, 2 and 4 days, including to obstetricians and gynaecologists of both sexes and also midwives, with the consequent track record she has which can be read on her website. Furthermore, unless the above writer has conducted a sufficient number of two day courses to be able to do a proper comparison, she is in no position to comment. Presumably because in her own words she would ?avoid like the plague? a two day course, she has never done one so cannot comment at all; therefore that remark lacks both substance and value. Katharine has done both and can comment on both from experience.
------
Comment: "HypnoBirthing is ONLY permitted to be taught over 4 or 5 sessions as standard. The only time it can be taught over two full days is when it is not feasible to teach over 4 or 5 sessions (i.e: somebody is already 38wks when they start)."
Response: This is only true of HypnoBirthing as controlled by Marie Mongan, without reference to subsequent field experience. In any event the remark defeats itself. Apparently it can only be taught over 4 or 5 sessions well before it becomes a vital component of birthing, but 2 days are fine if it is critical - at which time one would presume that the full course was more important than ever. That again is utterly without logic. If that is really the attitude to a course taken late in pregnancy, having already said that a 2 day course should be avoided like the plague, presumably because it is worse than useless, then it sounds to me as if allowing 2 days if pushed is more to do with getting the money than doing a proper course since by the aforementioned logic it can have no value. If on the other hand this is an admission that sufficient can be taught in two days to achieve the required end, then two days by definition will always be sufficient and the writer is hoist on her own petard. Actually the above remark proves that a 2 day course is indeed perfectly sufficient.
----
Comment: "I am of the firm belief that 2 day long courses are nowhere near as effective and this is a widely held belief amongst many practitioners and Marie Mongan, who lets face it has developed the most popular birth with hypnosis course in the world so must know what she's talking about!"
Response: Firstly this is simply an opinion and of no more value than any other opinion. Secondly, where does the data come from to say the belief is widely held amongst 'many' (which only necessarily means more than one) practitioners ? Katharine has in fact refuted that remark in her response. It is also a complete non sequitur. Marie Mongan did not develop the most popular birth with hypnosis course in the world - she developed the first such integrated course which only means that she wrote it as she thought best at the time, not that she necessarily knew in a wider sense what she was talking about. Following the flawed logic of this statement, one should never adapt and improve any form of activity beyond that arrived at by the first practitioner since they must know what they were talking about. That is simply not true. Every skill improves with practice-based experience and the original is soon superseded by better methods. We would still be forcing a bottle of rum down people's throats as anaesthetic before performing surgery were that not the case. When my children were born 40 plus years ago childbirth was an entirely different experience to now ? perhaps women should still go through the same process as then since clearly the doctors then practised before today's doctors and therefore knew best? The many hundreds of clients Katharine has provably helped to a wonderful birthing experience is all the proof needed that she is getting it right.
There is also a huge element of hypocrisy in Marie Mongan's actions in that she was perfectly happy for Katharine to give 2 day courses so long as she did not publicise the fact. Clearly therefore Marie Mongan felt that 2 days were indeed adequate. This also refutes the ?avoid like the plague? remark since Marie Mogan approved it - if hidden. Katharine was too honest to operate in a furtive way and so this all came about.
Comment: ?Marie Mongan de-registered practitioners who refused to teach the course properly, those who have been de-registered are no longer listed on the practitioner listing, so if she's not on there that's probably why.?
Response: Teaching any course properly is proven by results from practise and experience allied to client feedback. Clearly on those terms, given Katharine's success rate, she is teaching the course properly and to suggest otherwise is nonsense. Extended duration of a course is not necessarily what delivers the best results - what matters is how well information is (a) put across and (b) assimilated. The worse (a) is performed the longer (b) requires, which could be taken to point out that the worse the practitioner, the longer the time necessary for the course to be successfully put across. To denigrate a shorter time span without the relevant data to back up the statement is at best unsupportable and at worst dishonest. Katharine has not, as it happens, suggested that a 4 or 5 day course is a bad thing, and nobody else without absolute proof has any right to say a 2 day course is less effective. So let's have some objective thought and honesty instead of this opinionated emotionalism that applies no logic or balance whatsoever to the subject.
-----
Comment: "You have to ask WHY Marie Mongan would take such drastic steps if it REALLY didn't make any difference if the course was taught over two intensive days, she's a very smart lady!"
Response: The world is littered with people who come up with an idea and become so besotted by their own success that they believe there is no other or better way to do it than theirs, despite evidence to the contrary. Galileo suffered from the same syndrome in the Church. The project becomes in a very real sense their 'baby' and they cannot bear any changes. Add to that the arrogance that develops from success leading to a refusal to listen to others and you have the perfect combination to deliver an unthinking, closed-minded person - not the ideal individual to follow. As for saying "she's a very smart lady", that is simply an utter irrelevance; what matters is not how intelligent a person is but how receptive to outside thought and preparedness to learn and consequently amend they are, from cradle to grave. Albert Einstein was possibly as intelligent a person as Mongan, yet he constantly amended his work as new data became available - not least the amendments required to the Quantum Physics Theory, in terms of local and hidden variables. But perhaps Marie Mongan intuitively knows more about her subject than Einstein did after rigorous research.
I think not.
I would never have written in this vein, but the open attack upon what Katharine does and the suggestion that readers should avoid her course like the plague is so disgraceful (and indeed possibly actionable under the Restriction of Trade Act), not to mention illogically presented, that my sense of fairness made me butt in.
I might add that I have never heard Katharine criticise Marie Mongan, her method or any other practitioner of HypnoBirthing. What a shame not all practitioners are so reasonable and civilised.