Hello. As Dr. Grinder & Ms. St Clair suggested in WITW, hypnotists could develop procedures to implement a policy for ethical communication with a hypnosis client, with regard to an ethical principle for suggesting content to a hypnosis client.  That principle, when implemented as a procedure to accomplish a suggested hypnotic communication policy, would provide ethical guidelines for a therapist's use of hypnotic communication with his client. Although I don't have my copy of WITW anymore, here's what I believe is outlined in a later section of the book, as a principle of ethical communication with a client: (1) principle: the subjective connotations of your client's communication, when changed by you, needlessly and undesirably manipulate your client's experience. (2) policy: for each therapeutic speech act you deliver, make the content of your speech act match the content delivered by the client, in his prior speech acts. (3) procedure: ... The procedure used, if a therapist agrees to his interpretation of the principle AND the policy given above, deserves explanation or creation, from or by proper authorities in the fields of hypnosis and NLP.  Or does it?  It doesn't if: (4) all future practice of NLP relies on new methodology (New Code, maybe?) in which therapist verbalizations to the client are a strictly specified part of the methodology.  It does if: (5) future practice of NLP relies on any number of methodologies, combined haphazardly, but that can be modified to follow policy (2).  It does if: (6) the principle itself is contested by some practicing NLP members as being unethical or unnecessary.  Or perhaps it doesn't because: (7) condition (6) rightly concludes with principle (1) being dismissed as irrelevant to ethical hypnosis practice.  The details of procedure (3) are not obvious from policy (2).  Many commonsense ways of following policy (2), during therapeutic communication, might introduce the therapy client to innappropriate content, or innappropriately limit therapeutic hypnotic communication.  So procedure (3) deserves careful development and analysis by the NLP community, particularly by experts in the NLP field.  I am not an expert in the NLP field. My criterion for determining that condition (7) holds, and for determining that the suggestions of the authors of WITW in regard to principle (1) can be dismissed, is: (8) A resolute and firm dismissal of principle (1) is made by a consensus of all proper authorities in the field of NLP, including the authors of WITW. In the absence of condition (7), I would expect condition (5) to hold.  So long as condition (6) holds, then I would expect condition (5) also holds, and would continue to hold, until such time as condition (7) becomes true, or an explicit description of procedure (3) is made available to the NLP community.  A partial condition (4) and condition (5) could coexist, and so long as they did, the knowledge of those practicing NLP in condition (4) could be made into an explicit model of ethical hypnosis for those practicing NLP in condition (5).  Or the condition (5)er's could develop procedure (3) themselves, maybe for a revised policy (2), or for a revised principle (1), but for a principle similar in intent to Dr. Grinder and Ms. St Clair's proposals. Im only guessing that the New Code games meet condition (4), but I guess that conditions (4) and (5) already hold, that condition (6) is inevitable, and that condition (7) is counterintuitive.  I think condition (6) is inevitable because it's been hard, from what I've seen since WITW was released, to build communication and consensus among NLP authorities about policy (2).  But it could also be that many silent NLP authorities want to totally reject principle (1). I will come back to this thread, and will welcome any postings to it.  Assuming no replies to this post, my next post to this thread will probably contain my ideas related to procedure (3), and might contain written revisions to my proposed policy (2) and principle (1). -nj