Ethical dilemma

[zenmaster]

. Because if someone didn't want to be healed or didn't believe that they could be, it wouldn't happen.

Completely untrue.

Maybe our difference in opinion has to do with whether it's conscious or not.

That's the main difference. Person B knows what is 'whole' for Person A, but Person A does not for some reason. (Conversely, in the negative sense, Person B knows what is destructive for Person A, but Person A does not.) In the first case, the consequences to healing might be an evolutionary gamble, because a more 'healthy' (physio-emotional) condition entails removal of potentially useful catalyst.

But I do think that, on some level, the entity must have been receptive to the healing, for it to take place.

By design, we're not only 'receptive' to the unconscious, we're impressed and influenced by it. Patterns are created, learned, applied, and accepted. A big feedback loop.