Head to Head’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ debate regarding the retention and
continued use of eponyms was fascinating with Woywodt and Matteson ‘for’
and Whitworth ‘against.’ Having written a book in the eponymous series of
the Royal Society of Medicine on Dr. Richard Bright1 I suppose I’d better
declare an interest. The medical world would be a dull and unimaginative
place without eponyms and what would examiners do when they ran out of
questions to pose to struggling candidates –‘Who was Coudé?’ remains my
favourite! Humour is important in medicine as in other walks of life. As a
medical student eponyms stimulated further reading on the subject and also
served as an ‘aide-memoire’; both to be encouraged. Perhaps it is a
generation thing with younger doctors having no time for the past but to
parody somebody ‘The further you can look back the further you can see
forward.’ The argument about the Nazi doctors could be extended to Nobel
Literature Laureates and other dignitaries and is one thing that should be
left in the past. Medical history is an endangered subject and gets little
if any space in the modern medical curriculum. It is unlikely that any
more eponyms will be created so let us enjoy them while we can; they help
to keep our heritage alive and often enrich what may be a boring tutorial
or lecture. Judith Whitworth gets my vote.
Campbell Mackenzie Retired consultant nephrologist. e-
mail:dr.cammac@btinternet .com
1. ‘Richard Bright 1789-1858 Physician in an Age of Revolution and
Reform’ Diana Berry & Campbell Mackenzie; Eponymists in Medicine –
Royal Society of Medicine Ltd., London 1992 ISBN 1-85315-1882-2
Words 204
Rapid Response:
To name or not to name
HEAD TO HEAD
To name or not to name
Head to Head’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ debate regarding the retention and
continued use of eponyms was fascinating with Woywodt and Matteson ‘for’
and Whitworth ‘against.’ Having written a book in the eponymous series of
the Royal Society of Medicine on Dr. Richard Bright1 I suppose I’d better
declare an interest. The medical world would be a dull and unimaginative
place without eponyms and what would examiners do when they ran out of
questions to pose to struggling candidates –‘Who was Coudé?’ remains my
favourite! Humour is important in medicine as in other walks of life. As a
medical student eponyms stimulated further reading on the subject and also
served as an ‘aide-memoire’; both to be encouraged. Perhaps it is a
generation thing with younger doctors having no time for the past but to
parody somebody ‘The further you can look back the further you can see
forward.’ The argument about the Nazi doctors could be extended to Nobel
Literature Laureates and other dignitaries and is one thing that should be
left in the past. Medical history is an endangered subject and gets little
if any space in the modern medical curriculum. It is unlikely that any
more eponyms will be created so let us enjoy them while we can; they help
to keep our heritage alive and often enrich what may be a boring tutorial
or lecture. Judith Whitworth gets my vote.
Campbell Mackenzie Retired consultant nephrologist. e-
mail:dr.cammac@btinternet .com
1. ‘Richard Bright 1789-1858 Physician in an Age of Revolution and
Reform’ Diana Berry & Campbell Mackenzie; Eponymists in Medicine –
Royal Society of Medicine Ltd., London 1992 ISBN 1-85315-1882-2
Words 204
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests