The article by Dr. Woywodt and Dr. Matteson is very thoughtful and
cites many cogent reasons why eponyms should be discarded. On the other
hand, the article by Dr. Whitworth (1) presents some very good reasons
for retaining them. I prefer the middle ground: some eponyms should be
deleted and some preserved. One must agree with Dr. Whitworth that eponyms
bring colour to Medicine and reflect medical history. Serious study of a
subject inevitably requires knowledge of its history, its pioneers, and
its evolution, not just for cultural enrichment but for a proper
understanding. Eponyms, like other parts of language, undergo evolution
and some fall by the wayside while others survive. This process varies
with the the medical specialty involved.
In the case of anatomy, eponyms should mostly be discarded because
they fail to provide essential information. For example,the term
"iliofemoral ligament" is far more informative than "the y-shaped ligament
of Bigelow" and "the appendiceal mesentery" tells us more than "Treeves'
bloodless fold". In pathology, eponyms still serve a useful function when
the aetiology of a disease is unknown, and they tend to fall out of use
when knowledge advances, for example "St. Anthony's fire". In the
leukaemias and other haematological disorders, improved systems of
classification have virtually eliminated eponyms. Addison had two diseases
named after him; his name is still applied to adrenal failure but is
almost never applied to pernicious anaemia, which he also described. The
term "Hodgkin's disease" persists, because there are over fifty
alternative names for the condition on the international scene, and
because its aetiology is still uncertain. As an example of eponymic
evolution, some now call the condition "Hodgkin disease", on the grounds
that Thomas Hodgkin did not suffer from the disease, nor did he own it, so
the genitive,"Hodgkin's" is unjustified. In neurology and cardiology,
eponyms save time and words, as in "Jacksonian epilepsy", "Huntington's
chorea"and
"Fallot's tetralogy"
Of course eponyms may at times be unjustified: a disease is named
after an individual who was not the first, or the only, person to describe
it. This seeming injustice applies to all the learned disciplines and is
not a reason for killing off all eponyms. The question of whether the name
of a supposedly dishonourable person should be perpetuated in an eponym is
an involved one and I must agree with Dr. Whitworth that the decision to
reject such eponyms is a personal one. In the same vein, should we discard
such useful terms as Draconian, Machiavellian, Marxist, Nazi, and
Stalinism? I think not.
Rapid Response:
Save the eponyms (or some of them).
The article by Dr. Woywodt and Dr. Matteson is very thoughtful and
cites many cogent reasons why eponyms should be discarded. On the other
hand, the article by Dr. Whitworth (1) presents some very good reasons
for retaining them. I prefer the middle ground: some eponyms should be
deleted and some preserved. One must agree with Dr. Whitworth that eponyms
bring colour to Medicine and reflect medical history. Serious study of a
subject inevitably requires knowledge of its history, its pioneers, and
its evolution, not just for cultural enrichment but for a proper
understanding. Eponyms, like other parts of language, undergo evolution
and some fall by the wayside while others survive. This process varies
with the the medical specialty involved.
In the case of anatomy, eponyms should mostly be discarded because
they fail to provide essential information. For example,the term
"iliofemoral ligament" is far more informative than "the y-shaped ligament
of Bigelow" and "the appendiceal mesentery" tells us more than "Treeves'
bloodless fold". In pathology, eponyms still serve a useful function when
the aetiology of a disease is unknown, and they tend to fall out of use
when knowledge advances, for example "St. Anthony's fire". In the
leukaemias and other haematological disorders, improved systems of
classification have virtually eliminated eponyms. Addison had two diseases
named after him; his name is still applied to adrenal failure but is
almost never applied to pernicious anaemia, which he also described. The
term "Hodgkin's disease" persists, because there are over fifty
alternative names for the condition on the international scene, and
because its aetiology is still uncertain. As an example of eponymic
evolution, some now call the condition "Hodgkin disease", on the grounds
that Thomas Hodgkin did not suffer from the disease, nor did he own it, so
the genitive,"Hodgkin's" is unjustified. In neurology and cardiology,
eponyms save time and words, as in "Jacksonian epilepsy", "Huntington's
chorea"and
"Fallot's tetralogy"
Of course eponyms may at times be unjustified: a disease is named
after an individual who was not the first, or the only, person to describe
it. This seeming injustice applies to all the learned disciplines and is
not a reason for killing off all eponyms. The question of whether the name
of a supposedly dishonourable person should be perpetuated in an eponym is
an involved one and I must agree with Dr. Whitworth that the decision to
reject such eponyms is a personal one. In the same vein, should we discard
such useful terms as Draconian, Machiavellian, Marxist, Nazi, and
Stalinism? I think not.
1. Whitworth JA. BMJ 2007; 335, 425
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests