An eponym is a word named after a person who discovered or invented it. For example, most of us know what a sandwich is – the word sandwich gained its name from its inventor, The Fourth Earl of Sandwich. Medical tests, symptoms and diseases are commonly referred to with eponyms. A Head-to-Head* in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal debates whether eponyms are still a useful part of medicine.
*Head-to Head = An article that is presented like a debate. One person(s) writes in favour, while another (others) writes against.
Writers Alexander Woywodt and Eric Matteson argue that eponyms are not appropriate any more – they believe we should drop them and stick to more explanatory terms. They cite eponyms which are linked to Nazi medicine as some of the unsuitable ones. Eponyms lead to confusion and undermine scientific discussion, they say.
Some people claim eponyms facilitate learning and provide us with shorthand reference. However, one study found that out of 92 orthopaedic surgeons, only 10 were able to give a correct description of Finkelstein’s test, which diagnoses tendon inflammation.
Confusion is exacerbated by the different usage of eponyms, depending on which country they are utilised. Amid this confusion, say the writers, scientists are calling for a more descriptive classification of medical terms, particularly from specialties (which use eponyms extensively).
Rather than use eponyms, say the writers, we should perhaps “use our interest in medical history to provide fair and truthful accounts of scientific discoveries and to dissect individual contributions.” Editors of medical journals and textbooks should stop using eponyms, they urge.
Judith Whitworth, on the other hand, believes eponyms are helpful as they reflect medical history as well as representing medical terms.
in addition to providing convenient shorthand for the profession, eponyms bring colour to medicine, Whitworth argues. Eponyms embed medical traditions and culture in our history, she insists. She gives as an example the term Tourette’s syndrome. Would it be preferable to refer to “violent muscular jerks of the face, shoulders, and extremities with spasmodic grunting, explosive noises, or coprolalia?”
Some say it is wrong to use the name of a person who was evil as an eponym. However, history should be about what took place, rather than what we wish had happened, she writes. Removing some eponyms which referred to wicked people in our past is not the way to go, says Whitworth.
Eponyms are here to stay because they are deeply embedded in our culture – getting rid of them is not realistic, she writes. If we did decide to get rid of them in medicine, would the same happen in other areas of science? Would such terms as Avagadro’s number, Boyle’s law, the joule, the Kelvin, the hertz also disappear?
Whitworth asks about non-scientific terms, such as cardigan, sandwich, sideburns, diesel or chauvinism – would we abolish those as well?
“Head to Head: Should eponyms be abandoned?”
BMJ Volume 335 pp 424-5
http://www.bmj.com
Written by: Christian Nordqvist