In ancient times, priests occupied a privileged place in their society. They wore elaborate, expensive robes, were housed in palaces called temples, were given the reverence and respect of any king or emperor, and, indeed, held such power that they controlled the decisions made by those rulers. Their words were the last on any given subject and were considered unassailable; unquestionable. They were, in fact, priest/gods; somewhat more than mere human, and certainly with a stronger connection to that which was holy.

And so it was throughout approximately the first 4,000 of what we call civilization.

Along came the Renaissance and things changed. People began questioning the words of the priests – even of the church itself – and began looking for their own answers. They translated holy texts into their vernacular and read, and interpreted them for themselves rather than relying on the clergy to do so. When things did not add up the way they were told she did, they lost the respect and the reverence once given the priestly class. They ceased to be the awe-inspiring figures they once had been and evolved into more human, more fallible personas.

With the Enlightenment and its search for rationalism, came the rise of Science and, with it, eventually, a new elite class of authorities. These priests also wore special robes and were housed in a sort of temple, and, perhaps even more than their predecessors, had their words taken as absolute and inviolable. They are still among us.

Rather than the bejeweled regal robes of centuries before, these new priests wear vestments of white jackets. Instead of temples where their functions consist of rituals of killing animals or burning special incense, the rituals of the modern temples are centered on technological apparatus and the offering of chemical substances to intercede on behalf of the afflicted.

But, in the end, the words of these current-day priest/gods still hold sway over the great and small in the same way that their forerunners succeeded. They use arcane language, specialized rites and obscure knowledge to control and direct, for better or ill, those who hold them on high. They are still highly paid, housed in exquisite homes, and are given the deference and esteem of those who have gone before them. And, just like those precursors, these all-powerful priests now face the one thing feared most by those of their kind who have put power before the good of their flocks.

The modern priest/god of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries is exactly the opposite of those of past eons, however, in one way. Rather than tend to the spiritual issues and matters of the congregants, this priest/god concentrates on the physical, and calls it the “practice” of medicine.

When I was growing up – 40-odd years ago – my family doctor was a neighbor and friend of the family. I, in fact, carry his name as one of my own. He lived two doors down from my grandparents, among of the patients in that neighborhood, and would regularly be seen at one door or another, “just checking in.”

Later on, in my twenties, I had another doctor; this one an old country doctor whose prevalent method of diagnosis was to gently touch the patient in this gland or that muscle, and have a conversation with them about what was going on. He was, in fact, the only doctor I have ever had who was invariably correct in his diagnosis – he was also the only one who – believe it or not – charged $10 per office visit and, if you were short of money, would wait until you had a bit to spare, or would accept a couple dozen eggs or a freshly lucked chicken in lieu of his fee.

Both of these doctors, even when they were alive, were – no pun intended – dying breeds. They were doctors who were not just “serving” a community, but who were members of their communities and who considered themselves as having the full-time responsibility of compassion and modesty.

But, as the rise of technology and “science” swept over the medical profession things changed. In the past, a doctor would be careful to correct anyone referring to his vocation as “science;” making sure they knew it was an “art.” In fact, it was referred to as the “medical arts,” a designation that can still be noticed over the doors of some older, less progressive universities.

Tangent: It is my observation that we really do not have medical “science”; rather we have medical technology. The part of the medical practice which we more often refer to as being scientific is, in realty, a technician, without no more medical training than your average autoworker, going about her or his job in much the same way as that autoworker, and then forwarding the results of that work to the “expert” which, without being present at the actual event nor knowledgeable of any actual context, interprets – priest-like – the holy scriptures of the technical scribe and passes judgment over the supplicant.

But, just as Mr. Guttenberg helped to topple the theocracy of the past, so the dissemination of knowledge, so it is with our modern celebrant.

This came to mind the other day when I noticed certain symptoms which I could not identify readily. It was Memorial Day Weekend and it was definite that I would have not the slightest contact with anyone approaching a doctor knowledgeable with my circumstances. I had a choice: I could go to an urgent care facility where they might give a solid diagnosis, although this has not been my general experience. I could go to the emergency room where I would wait hours to find out the barest of information and would probably be “coaxed” into spending the night “for observation.” Or I could open a book beside me which contained medical conditions, their symptoms and their treatments. If I needed more information, there was always – with proper judicial care – the internet.

I opted for the third alternative.

The condition in question was not of immediately life-threatening consequences. It is a matter that is of concern over the long-term. So it was not an issue of emergency service. It was, however, a matter of importance and of necessary attention.

Looking through the books at hand, I saw that each one carried the legally required caveat “this should not be used without proper supervision by a medical professional.” In other words, do not partake of this knowledge without first getting the blessing of your specific oracle.

This caused me to think more deeply about what I was doing and the hierarchy in which I was taking part.

The first thought that occurred to me was “Whose health is it anyway?” The second thought that occurred to me was “Why should I assume that the doctor knows more about my health than I do?”

Some years ago, I had a heart attack. At the time, I smoked between 2 ½ and four packs of cigarettes per day, ate almost nothing but fast food, and my more strenuous exercise was getting in and out of my car. The Cardiologist in charge of my case never catherized me to see what damage was done or what arteries were blocked, to other than the fact that we had prevented complete cardiac failure, we knew little more than before.

About five years ago, I went in to have that cath, and, not to my surprise, at least, we found that I had two arteries blocked. They were angioplastied and stented. Upon my release from the hospital, the doctor – excuse me, the Cardiologist – informed me that I would have to be on three types of drugs for the rest of my life.

“How do you know?” I asked.

There was a stunned look on his face. “What do you mean?”

“I mean, how do you know that I need these medications? What are they for and what is there purpose?”

It turned out that one was for blood pressure, one was a blood thinner and the third was to lower my heart rate.

“First of all, my blood pressure is, and has been for the past seven years, in the close neighborhood of 120/70. I take an aspirin every day which is, by the AMA’s own literature, the best blood thinner you can get, and my heart rate, at rest, is in the low 60s. Now, you didn’t know that did you?”

The Cardiologist didn’t see the relevance.

“The relevance is,” I told him, “is that I don’t need your medications. My body is functioning at the level you want it to do without using them. So, why would you just off-handedly prescribe them?”

“We do that in every case,” he said. “It’s standard procedure.”

Here began a half-hour discussion about how medicine is not a “general” pursuit. It is a very personal and very intimate pursuit and is not one in which Standard Operating Procedures can truly apply.

He disagreed, of course.

Finally, I asked the question he really didn’t want me to ask:

“Whose life is it anyway?”

He stuttered and hesitated.

I did not relent.

“Who has the final right of determining my health?”

Quietly, he said, “You do, of course.”

“Then I will do the research, interpret the information and make the decision for myself.”

“But you do not have the training and the education necessary to do so.”

And here is where I lost patience.

I not-so-calmly explained to the doctor that I was of at least comparable intelligence to him, that I had at least as much experience in researching and data-gathering as he did, and that I was perfectly capable of going to an “expert” and asking questions if I did not understand something. After all, that is what a doctor is for, correct?

He shrugged.

Since that time, I have used doctors primarily for diagnosis and only on a secondary level for treatment. I have made it a point to interview any “medical professional” which whom I intend to begin a relationship – and that is a large part of what the interview focuses upon; that relationship – knowing me and who I am and what I am – not merely looking at a file or a chart -- and discussing with me the options and having an objective conversation with me about how I wish to proceed. I leave no doubt that, if I do not get satisfactory responses from the doctor, I will not be her or his patient for even a moment. I also make sure, in polite terms, that the doctor knows that he or she is, after all, my employee – hired help, casual labor – and that I hold the final decision in any and all matters pertaining to our relationship.

The priests of ancient times fought hard to maintain their elite status, reaching its peak in the West, arguably, during the medieval period where no king of Europe could be crowned without the permission and blessing of the Pope.

But with the access to knowledge and the freedom – hard won – to question, that class of superiors was toppled.

Knowledge is, as the saying goes, power, and those who possess it solely unto themselves become, if they are not in the beginning, tyrants. To me, one area of health care reform that is more needed than any other is for those of us who are the employers, who pay the hired help – one way or another – and who are meant to be the ones served rather than the servers – for us to take into our own hands the knowledge and information we need to make our own decisions and to use the “medical professionals” in an advisory capacity first and rely upon their treatment skills only when truly needed.

Along with that, we need to educate our medical advisors in new and alternative ways of treatment, insisting they look at things in different ways and make use of different tools. They will resist. It goes against everything they have been indoctrinated to believe. But it will be better for us and for them if we take charge of our own health and direct them where we need them to go.

After all, any shepherd who does not follow where the flock grazes is destined to lose that flock.

Author's Bio: For 12 years, as a professional journalist, I covered education, environmental legislation, criminal courts, and politics. Throughout my career, I described myself as from the "Dragnet School of journalism -- Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts." In 1998, I left journalism because I refused to become the type of sensationalist I would've had to become to continue in my chosen field. Instead, I entered a new career in education, working with inner city, at-risk students trying to make a new and better life for themselves. I still write for magazines, mostly historical and biographical non-fiction, and have a continuing interest in (true) journalism, environmentalism, world poverty and a new world economy.

www.opednews.com/articles/And-The-Sheep-Shall-Lead-by-Philip-Greene-090526-968.html