The Mind-Body Relationship
1) Introduce the subject by giving a brief account of the insight into the mind-body relationship as outlined in the texts
	It’s clear, from the provided texts, that the current way of medical thinking when speaking of diseases or conditions is, that there is a quite complex interaction between mind and body. In the first text, by Alice D. Domar, stress, a term that’s gravely misused in modern-day folk medicine, is presented as a contributing factor to infertility, albeit one of the few, which is possible to actively influence for the infertile. Ms. Domar relates this to a patient story of hers; a 33-year old woman, apparently completely unable to conceive, who actually did have a baby after cutting down on exercise, stimulants influencing stress hormones like (nor)epinephrine and cortisone (read: caffeine and alcohol) and using relaxation techniques. Thusly, ms. Domar argues, that the mind can in fact influence such a basic bodily function as procreation, and that fertility treatments should be more than simple injections of sex steroids, and treat the whole body and mind. 
	In the second text, by Michael C. Miller, the importance of a solid patient-doctor relationship is outlined. Miller contends that if healthcare providers treated their patients with more consideration, and the patients expected more than a quick evaluation and Rx prescription forms, there would be more satisfied patients, and thus better clinical results. Miller also asserts that a strong patient-doctor relationship provides an emotional safety net, when life gets tough, and there seemingly is no-one to turn to. However, Miller also admits that relationships are time-consuming, and that a good relationship is by no means a cure in itself. But neither is pills and procedures, he concludes.
	The third text, written by Steven Pinker, is an argument for the organic view of the mind - the implication of which is that the soul and brain are not separate entities. Pinker believes that most people - even today - have problems understanding, that the soul in fact is contained in the brain. This misunderstanding is carried on in idioms like “use your brain”, and leads to confusion as to why meditation, education and psychotherapy can change the brain. Pinker also advocates a pragmatic opinion towards psychotropics like antidepressants and anxiolytics, stating that these pills shouldn’t be dispensed like mints, but that they are effective when pathologic emotional pain has been established in a patient. With this, Pinker asserts, that not all emotional pain is of ill origin; in fact, he believes that emotional pain is a human mechanism for coping with deadlines and losses in life. Pinker concludes  by stating, that if we set aside our childlike intuitions, and think afresh about what makes people better and worse off, we will be able to live with the new challenges, advances in brain science bring.
	The fourth - and final - text is quite different from the preceding three, first and foremost because it’s fictional. In it, the main character experiences what I would categorize as a decay of moral fiber after receiving a “body transplant”. The main character, who had originally decided to be faithful to his wife, Margot, has turned into quite the sufferer of satyriasis after the transplant, looking after young women and even young men on the street. Eventually, he asks a young woman to join him for a drink. Their brief relationship quickly escalates, and they end up having sex, admiring each other’s bodies, as they set aside refinement and intellect for what the main character refers to as a “sublime fuck”. After parting with the woman,  now sleeping, the main character concludes, faithfulness be damned, that his new way of life is excellent.
2) Comment on the language and the stucture of one of the texts 
	I’ve chosen to comment on the language and structure of the Miller text (no. 2). Mr Miller starts out by putting the reader in the role of the doctor, who has an ill-feeling patient but no obvious treatments, then asking what the reader would do? After this brief role-play, Miller refers to a hungarian psychoanalyst, Michael Balint, and his work regarding the nature of patient-doctor relationships. Miller uses this reference and research as a base for his further argumentation, ultimately ending up concluding, that a healthy relationship between the general practitioner and the patient is paramount when treating illnesses. Miller does a good job of getting around all three taxonomic levels with steady progression, which smoothens the reading experience. The text is, in itself, rather brief, spanning about half of a standard US letter size page.  Hence, the density of information is high, and the sentences, compressed as they may be, benefit from their relative brevity, aiding Miller in getting his points across. Language-wise, the text is easily readable, although a few terms may be unknown to the non-native anglophone, such as “to stymy”. However, looking up a small number of terms is not likely to hamper the average person’s understanding of the text. This ease of reading furthers the strength of Miller’s argumentation, simply because the points are gotten across quite easily.
3) Discuss some social and/or religious consequences of the modern mind-body relationship
	In modern-day psychiatry, there are two organic hypotheses of mental disease. The first, applying to psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia, brief reactive psychoses etc., is that these conditions are caused by an overabundance of the neurotransmitter dopamine in certain brain circuits. This hypothesis can easily be proven, because most patients respond well to anti-psychotic medication, which - oddly enough - has strong antidopaminergic properties. A similar theory is proposed for conditions characterized by depression and anxiety, where drugs boosting brain levels of two other neurotransmitters, norepinephrine and serotonin show beneficial effects. The question, however, is whether these irregularities in brain chemistry are the causes or effects of the mental conditions. A classic chicken/egg problem.
	For a very religious person, viewing the behavioral and emotional aspects of our daily life as a consequence of small molecules interacting in an about 3 pound heavy blob mostly made out of fat and connective tissue can be rather difficult, especially as most world religions view the behavioral aspects of a person as being decided by an ethereal concept called the soul, as Steve Pinker points out. For a lot of these people, an immortal life is contradictory to a mortal object being in control. I’m not suggesting that this schism can’t be solved, and while I wouldn’t categorize myself as being very religious, I do in fact believe in something beyond this life, yet I’m absolutely convinced of the brain being the seat of my personality. 
	In my opinion, great care must also be taken not to categorize somatic illness as the product of a mind gone horribly wrong. A classic example of this is the way peptic ulcers were viewed just a few decades ago - as a product of an over-stressed mind, effectively resulting in the legal incapacitation of a lot of people, due to zealous psychologists and psychiatrists. Nowadays, we know peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, which is quite treatable. Another example is the classic mantra “think positive, and you’ll get better”. I certainly don’t hope this will be taken to a point where cancer patients who in fact don’t get better are blamed and derided by families and healthcare providers for their illness. 
	On the other hand, somatic illness is known to cause mental conditions. An example of this is Huntington’s Syndrome, of which the great American writer Hunter S. Thompson was a sufferer. This condition often leads to extreme risk-taking behavior - which is clearly reflected in Thompson’s magnum opus, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas. 
	Body and mind are irrevocably interdependent entities; you can’t treat one without treating the other. But when treating patients, blaming the mind is essentially tantamount to implying the patient is the cause of his/her illness. Compassion and a desire to help should be the leading aspect of healthcare, as with so many other aspects of life.
	If it wasn’t, we would have reduced ourselves to the level of beasts. 
	Perhaps in order to take away the inevitable pain of being human?