Hallerworden and Spatz

[prolurk]

As some of you know, I am in the process of writing a textbook about Neurologic eponyms, and boring a couple of you to death about it. 
The incomparable Greyrider is beta-ing the A's even now, God love her.  I've come upon something of a dilemma, and I thought I'd step out of my usual avoidance of real life on these pages to see what my f-list

Comments

[jaanquidam]

It depends on the conventions of the field--and I'm in the humanities, not the sciences--but, as a rule, I think it's a bad idea to erase the past. I mean, being a Nazi is bad, but that's a totally ad hoc argument, and begs a number of questions, such as: What about all the other physicians who violated their oaths? Or the physicians who belonged to groups that were themselves systematically written out of history? Is this really any different than when the House cafeteria changed the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries? Would anyone think it's okay to call our numbers American numerals instead of Arabic numerals just because we're at war with an Arab nation

[prolurk]

Thank you so much!
The trick is that the only entries in the book are eponyms. You wanna look up progressive pallidal degeneration, you can find it in the textbook. My book is a 'Scut-monkey" book aimed at students who get nailed by the attending on rounds with "Tell me the three main symptoms of Hallervorden-Spatz disease, and who were Hallervorden and Spatz?" Neurology attendings love doing stuff like that (*ahem* I sure did). So the poor student can say: "Doctor, it isn't in this book", or "Doctor, this book says that the disorder isn't called that anymore 'cause H and S were rotten people". The question with option two is whether it's my aim in this little book to go into big ethical issues. And whether I should.

It's a significant honor to have your research named for you. It's improper to name something after yourself - someone who respects you does it for you. And if your behavior outside your brilliance renders you undeserving of respect, then you should expect that your research should have only a clinical name.

[jaanquidam]

Ah, okay--that makes a little more sense, then. Personally, I still think the entry should go in, along with an explanation of why the term Hallervorden-Spatz is obsolete. The reason is that, at the end of your 1st paragraph, you wrote that the "question with option two is whether it's my aim in this little book to go into big ethical issues." But you're doing that either way; if you leave out the term altogether, you're making an ethical decision to the effect that these two guys are less deserving than anyone whose name hasn't become unused. It seems to me that that position is essentially saying "Nazi (or war criminal) contributions don't count." That approach isn't ethically any different than writing anyone else out of history. In fact, that's what the Nazis were trying to do: rewrite history such that it suggested the superiority of their own values. I'm not comparing Nazis to the people who would choose not to honor their contributions, of course; I'm just saying that removing certain individuals from a particular

I am geekily in love with your entire project.

[sauvagerie]

Having read (albeit speedily) the preceding comments, I vote for #1. If neuro attendings are still using the old name to flummox residents, it's not strictly true to say that the old name is no longer in use. But I would include the biological name in the entry as well. Give the scut-monkeys a chance to look smart by saying "Actually, Dr. Oldbastard, the current term is 'progressive pallidal degeneration' and the symptoms are x, y, and z."

A not-quite-parallel, but nonetheless perhaps illuminating (or at least interesting on its own merits), conversation is ongoing about "intersex" versus "disorders of sexual development"--see Alice Domurat Dreger's website.

[uufarmgirl]

Here's a bit of advice my advisor gave me when I was trying to figure out how to address my (theologically derived) opposition to Posilac in my dissertation: stuff that is personal, controversial, judgmental, ethical, theological, or some combination of all of the above belongs in the foreword. Handle "H-S (obs.)" exactly as you would handle Lou Gehrig, but in the foreword, talk a little bit about your personal experience of researching these biographies and how you as a modern physician/scientist seeing patients today with these same diseases responded to previous generations of physician/scientists and their patients. Give special attention and condemnation to H-S. Shoah was about erasure; about denying the past. Don't respond likewise.