OT: Doesn't it seem an odd tribute to give to doctors? Naming diseases after them?

Pratoman's recent thread ("OT - Listeria") got me to thinking.

It certainly has been one of the most common practices in the history of medicine.

That is, naming diseases after the people medically associated with them, often their discoverers, usually doctors, researchers or other medically associated persons. Such as "Listeria" for Joseph Lister. The name may even come from the name of a patient (example, Lou Gehrig's Disease).

Well, maybe it's just me, but while it's meant to recognize, in an honoring sort of way, the work a person did in identifying and bringing attention to a previously unrecognized disease, there just seems to be, at least in my view, something a bit "odd," or "awkward" in doing that.

Or do you disagree?

For example, it will now happen that whenever a patient, or his family, hear the disease name pronounced, to include the name of its discoverer, those people will likely be filled with fear, followed by intense worry about what the future will hold, now that this disease is in their lives.

That would seem like an odd "honor" wouldn't it? That every time one's name is mentioned as part of a disease name, it evokes fear?

But then it might be argued that the honor was always meant to be seen in the eyes of other doctors and medical personnel, who would be thinking more of the achievement that was done in identifying the disease, and less on the emotional impact its name might have on some, including patients of the disease and their loved ones.

In any case, as noted, it's been a long-held practice to name diseases after people.

"An eponymous disease is a disease, disorder, condition, or syndrome named after a person, usually the physician or other health care professional who first identified the disease; less commonly, a patient who had the disease; rarely, a fictional character who exhibited signs of the disease; and, in some few instances, after an actor or the subject of a literary allusion, because characteristics associated with them were suggestive of symptoms observed in a particular disorder." -- From Wikipedia

A good discussion of the practice:

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/01/28/eponym-debate-the-case-for-naming-diseases-after-people/

From it:

"Is it better to name a genetic disorder Potocki-Lupski syndrome or 17p11.2 duplication syndrome? What about Addison's disease as opposed to adrenal insufficiency? Or Tay-Sachs disease versus hexosaminidase alpha-subunit deficiency (variant B)? If you have a strong opinion about which is preferable, you aren't alone: there is an ongoing controversy about how to name diseases. In Western science and medicine, a long-standing tradition is to name a disease after a person. However, many physicians now argue that these eponyms should be abandoned for biologically-descriptive names."

"Although the media sometimes comes up with a catchy name that sticks, like swine flu, diseases are typically named by scientists when they first report them in scientific publications. Oftentimes, diseases are named after prominent scientists who played a major role in identifying the disease. The example that leaps to my mind is Hodgkin's disease -- a type of cancer associated with enlarged lymph nodes."

" ... one of the reasons to keep eponyms is that they are embedded with medical traditions and history. They include some kind of story. And, oftentimes, they honor key people associated with the disease."

" ... eponymous disease names provide a convenient shorthand for doctors and patients."

"There are certainly examples where eponymous disease names are so inculcated in medical vernacular that changing them to a pathology-based name might not be worth the effort ... (names such as) Alzheimer's disease and Crohn's disease."

Or how about something like "Peyronie's Disease," which we do indeed see mentioned here on the forum from time to time? (Named for French surgeon François Gigot de la Peyronie, who described it in 1743).

There are even diseases whose entire name is essentially the name of the person associated with them. Consider for example, as noted above, the discussion we had recently about Listeria, a bacteria which causes Listeriosis, a severe bacterial infection. Both named, as one might expect, after the famous Joseph Lister.

So about how many "eponymous diseases" (that is, named for somebody) are there? Well according to this Wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_eponymous_diseases#:~:text=reasons%20for%20this%20include%3a%201%20a%20national%20or,abercrombie%20syndrome%2c%20and%20virchow%20syndrome%20%29%3b%20more%20items

there are a BUNCH! (Hundreds, it looks like). Access the above link and see just how many for yourselves.

As also noted above, some would like to see the naming of diseases for people discouraged, in favor of more biologically descriptive names. But also as noted, many others prefer to keep the eponymous tradition going, naming diseases after people.

From additional articles I read while researching this topic, it looks to me like the eponymous naming practice won't be ending any time soon. New-found diseases will, by and large, continue to be named after their discoverers, unless a clever media name, or even the name of a patient with the disease, gets a jump ahead in the naming process.

Whether that makes the person's name scary to the public or not.

BTW, I also found in researching this that the WHO in recent years has issued its own guidelines to follow in naming new-found diseases in general, and not only in the case of people.

One of the emphases in these guidelines was to avoid names that could appear prejudicial to certain groups.

For example, it seems that

Gay-Related Immune Deficiency

was one of the early candidates for the name to be used for what eventually came to be known by the name of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

One can see why a prejudicial element may have been present if that initial name had been used.

Or how about "Legionnaires' Disease?"

(I know, it might look like the issue of "political correctness" may be coming into play here, but some of the WHO's reasoning did seem logical to me after I read it. I may do an upcoming thread on their guidelines, what they consider to be useful, and what not, in providing names for new-found diseases).

So for better or worse, it looks like "[Name]'s Disease" will continue to be the general format for newly-discovered diseases for a while, perhaps a good while, to come.

Although I'm not sure it fits any of OPs categories, Scurvy is my "favorite" name for a disease, that being Vitamin C deficiency. I think using Scurvy for my amusement is okay since it's easily corrected and is now very rare. Scurvy...for some reason the vileness of the word seems self-evident, and a good descriptor of the disease, which is apparently quite horrific.

I did a little research and Scurvy was a major maritime problem during the 16th to 18th centuries. Perhaps two million sailors, including pirates, died from Scurvy during that time. Of course, when out sailing on the oceans for months at a time there was little access to fruits and vegetables.

A British physician finally figured it out and lemons and limes were ordered onto British ships. (how did they keep the fruits fresh?) This is how British sailors became known as "limeys" to American sailors. Interesting, Inuits never had problems with Scurvy, which is a bit of a mystery. Some believe that raw fish and meat provided them with enough Vitamin C (which is degraded by heat) or that Inuits may have an enzyme that helps to form the vitamin.

When I see the word Scurvy it always brings to mind the scene of a couple of pirates, probably drunk on rum, escalating an argument to point of calling each other "scurvy dogs," which may have been the ultimate insult at that time. Perhaps similar to the way we throw f-bombs now. Lol

Okay, well now you know. History lesson done for today. Have a good week everyone.

On a side but related note, why on earth would anybody, Dr or not, recognition or not, want a DISEASE named after them? LOL. No thank you

I wonder, is our current obsession with wanting perfect examples in our collective past causing more trouble than it's worth?

I mean, really, if we try to undo all the good things someone did because they also did some questionable things, then aren't we forgetting that if I point my finger at someone three more are pointing back at me?

Fritz Haber is a perfect example: He developed the technology that makes it possible for us to grow enough food on earth for all of us to survive (the Haber Process for fixing Nitrogen). Without that, we'd all be worse off. He also invented mustard gas. I'm not saying they balance (they don't), but do we discount the positives because there are negatives?

Casey, it's messy I agree.

I'm in the position that we need to judge people in the past according to the ethos of their times. Lincoln, after all, was in favor of sending former slaves to Liberia.

It's like arguing that Huck Finn is evil because Twain used the N-word. Well, in the time it was written, that was common speech. Huck Finn was remarkably progressive in it's time--and is still one of the greatest American novels.

Going back to eponyms, well they do confer a certain level of notoriety. They also do honor the work of someone (or perhaps a team leader more recently) who added to our collective knowledge and understanding. And I consider that overall a good thing.