Tainted eponyms in medicine: the “Clara” cell joins the list

Abstract

Eponyms are a time-honoured tradition in medicine as well as the sciences. Some fields of medicine, such as rheumatology and neurology, are particularly fond of them and the term “eponymophilia” has been coined to describe their affinity 1. Those who like their eponyms argue that their use adds flavour to our daily practice and that they are universally understood. They also claim that, as they are everywhere anyway, change would be impractical 2. During the last decade or so, the use of eponyms has become the subject of intense controversy. In 2003, Panush et al. 3 reported on the biography of Hans Reiter, after whom a form of reactive arthritis was named despite the fact that others had described the condition well before him. Apart from being an outspoken lecturer in favour of “racial hygiene”, Reiter served on the advisory board to Hitler's physician, Karl Brandt, who headed the infamous “euthanasia” programme. This systematic killing of patients with mental and other illnesses developed the killing mechanism utilised in the genocide of the Jews, and the Roma and Sinti people. Brandt was executed for this and other crimes in 1948. Moreover, Reiter, as Chief of the Reich Health Service, approved not only the sterilisation programmes but also the deliberate infection of concentration camp inmates with rickettsia. The report by Panush et al. 3 led many physicians, particularly in the USA and Germany, to abandon the use of the eponym in favour of a more descriptive name 4. Panush's work also led to the formal retraction, in 2007, of the initial publication that coined this particular eponym 5. It is probably fair to say that there is no coherent approach to these issues within the rheumatology community. Some have disdained its use, whereas others continue the use of …