Skip to main content

Doctors as Priests, Providers, and Protectors - Part 2

Ron Pies and I ask similar questions.  Well, I never asked Is Suicide Immoral?  But maybe I should let that one go...  In addition to being Professor of Psychiatry at SUNY and Tufts, Pies is a bioethicist and Editor in Chief Emeritus at Psychiatrictimes.com.  So while he writes books like Clinical Manual of Psychiatric Diagnosis and Treatment: A Biopsychosocial Approach, his philosopher, poet, and novelist vocations are expressed in other works, including The Myeloma Year: And Essays on Mind and Spirit.

The kind of guy I'd love to meet for coffee and conversation, Pies added to my fascination an article reflecting on his role as a doctor, Priests, Providers, and Protectors: The Three Faces of the Physician.  See, my senior thesis reflected on my own future role as priest, the ordained kind, Is the Holy Spirit an Equal Opportunity Employer?  Both of us take on the notion of priest as Father.

"Yes, Father, I've been taking my medicine."  A patient's slip of the tongue led Pies to recall the ancient connection between the roles of healer and holy person.  It's a natural connection, if you consider the divine will to be for healing.  It doesn't matter what faith tradition you examine.  The two roles were originally one.



Alas, early Christian writers introduced the Father metaphor into their reflections about priesthood.  Monasteries used the title for the Abbot.  Then over time, the role of parish priest followed the monastic model.  Quite ironically, I might add, since Father is the one title Jesus told his followers not to use.  But subsequent generations have never been able to relinquish the implied power over, even since the last century when the title became problematic in the face of women clergy and in the Episcopal Church, women priests.  The newly ordained guys this century seem to cling to Father all the more.

And with the title came paternalism, a system based on the concept of women and children as a man's property.

Pies rightly rejects the paternalism of the medical system.  "The priest-like status of doctors historically encouraged paternalism to which patients readily acquiesced... We are not priests, and we should not lay claim to the 'God-given' power or authority of priests -- which, as we well know, may be subject to abuse and exploitation."

Indeed.  And yet...  Healing is not mediated solely through the application of a doctor's medical expertise.  The worst, most harmful thing a psychiatrist ever said to me was, "I don't do relationships.  I use pharmacology to treat psychological illness."

It's the paternalism, not the priesthood itself, that is the problem.  When the roles were originally one role, it was that of witch, witch-doctor, shaman, druid.  These words do not sit easy in our modern minds for good reason -- there was all out assault on these healers by Church and a modern scientific establishment that enforced its own paternalism.

Next week I will publish an excerpt of a book to be published next year, Prozac Monologues: Are You Sure It's Just Depression?  In the excerpt, a doctor who does do relationships used the spiritual power of her role.  She didn't call herself a witch-doctor.  But the priest sitting in her office and in need of that power recognized the spell.

Other posts in this series:

Doctors as Providers
Doctors as Priests - The Look
Doctors as Protectors

book cover from Amazon.com
photo of stained glass St. Luke the Physician by author
photo of various pills used under Creative Commons license
Condemned Witches Burning in St. Peter's Port from the 1800s, in public domain

Comments

Popular Posts

Loony Saints - Margaret of Cortona Edition

Every once in a while, Prozac Monologues reaches into my Roman Catholic childhood's fascination with saints, especially the ones who today might be assigned a diagnostic code in the DSM.  Twice, Lent Madness has introduced me to new ones that I share with you.



A few years ago it was Christina the Astonishing.










Today it's Margaret of Cortona.  If you're a Lent Madness regular, you'd expect Margaret to be a shoe in for the first round of voting, where her competition is a stuffy old bishop/theologian, because Margaret became a Franciscan and, more significantly, her story features a dog.  Lent Madness voters are suckers for dogs.

Anosognosia and Amador

Anosognosia. It means lack of insight. But from the mouth of Xavier Amador, it’s his ticket. He tells you he knows why your son or daughter won’t take meds. And you are desperate for the answer, aren’t you. Because schizophrenia is a terrible disease and your beloved child is sick and won’t take the meds. The meds would make everything alright. So you are desperate and Xavier Amador throws you a lifeline, a promise that once you understand this unpronounceable word, you can learn how to get your child to take the meds.

He must be right, right? Because he is a psychologist and he can pronounce it. And then the kicker, he also loved somebody with schizophrenia, and he says he got him to take the meds. So NAMI invites him to give the spotlight lecture, and for the rest of the convention, parents hear every other presentation through the filter of this new word that they cannot pronounce.

Here is how you pronounce it:



But really, why bother? It means lack of insight. But you have heard o…

Introducing Allen Frances

Allen Frances was the editor of the DSM-IV, first published in 1990.  He is now the fiercest critic of its next major revision, the DSM-5.  For over three years, he has been blogging weekly to this end at Psychology Today.  This week I will summarize his steady drumbeat.  I hope soon to publish an open letter to him.

Frances' complaint in a nutshell is that the DSM-5 creates fad diagnoses and changes criteria of older diagnoses to medicalize a whole range of normal behavior and miseries.  The link lists these problem diagnoses and a number of the following points, in an article published all over town last December.

These issues have been discussed widely, in public and private circles.  I am not qualified to address each point, though I did give a series over to one of them, the bereavement exclusion.  The best of the batch, if I do say so myself, is Grief/Depression III - Telling the Difference, which got quoted in correspondence among the big boys.