1. Throughout this paper I shall use the word ?priest? in what might be called its ?generic? sense, followingWebster's Third New International Dictionary's primary definition: ?one who performs sacrificial, ritualistic, mediatorial, interpretive or ministerial functions, esp. as an authorized or ordained religious functionary of official minister of a particular religion.? I will, accordingly, use the terms ?priest? and ?minister? interchangeably, which would not be permissible were I to intend by the former the particular clergy of, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church. Some readers may find it hard to avoid the specific denominational connotations of the term ?priest.? Indeed, just such an immediate association may contribute to the resistance I shall be analyzing. My purpose in this paper, however, is to separate the concept of ?priest?-and ?minister?-from connotations that predispose to this resistance, in order to permit other connotations to emerge which. I shall argue, bear constructively on medical practice.
2. There is a vast literature to support this contention. Among the most prominent, I would cite Frank, J.,Persuasion and Healing. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973; Lain Entralgo, P.,Doctor and Patient. New York, McGraw Hill, 1969; Lain Entralgo, P.,Mind and Body: Psychosomatic Pathology; A Short History of the Evolution of Medical Thought. London, Harvill, 1955; Fabrega, H.,Disease and Social Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge, M.I.T. Press, 1974; and Kleinman, A.,Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1980.
3. Osler, W., ?Medicine in the Nineteenth Century?. In Osler, W.,Aequanimitas and Other Addresses. London, H.K. Lewis, 1946, pp. 258?260.
4. Cabot, R.C., and Dicks, R.L.,The Art of Ministering to the Sick. New York, Macmillan, 1936.
5. Cabot, R.C.,Social Service and the Art of Healing. New York, Moffatt, Yard, 1915, p. 24.