As I was going through my workload today, I came upon a specimen from an unfortunate man who suffered from Fournier's gangrene. I paused to consider how much I would want to be famous for something like that and came to the rapid conclusion: not in the slightest. One has to wonder how the people who have described diseases feel about the eponymous descriptors of those diseases. If I were, say, Leishman, who identified the protozoan that causes Leishmaniasis, I probably would not mind terribly, since the disease is named after the organism which he described (Leishmania sp.), and finding new species, even parasitic ones, is a pretty exciting thing. However, being recorded for eternity in connection with some of the more (or less, depending on your perspective) colorful diseases out there, seems somewhat less than desirable. I certainly would not want to be remembered for the reasons we immortalize Peyronie, Bowen, von Recklinghausen, or Queyrat (go Wikipedia them yourself). Eponyms are frowned upon in medical schools (at least they were in mine when I went there), probably in part for these reasons. Some common names for diseases are understandable; for example, syphilis being called the French pox by the English, the English pox by the French, and lues in older medical terminology, derived from the Latin for plague. However, if I should ever wind up discovering a novel disease, I would probably be happiest giving it a long Latin name in keeping with the likes of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta, to at least be certain of giving future medical students headaches in pronouncing it (much less remembering it). In retrospect, it wouldn't surprise me if Fournier was really the name of the man found in a compromising situation with the wife of the person who first discovered the disease. That is an eponym of which I would wholeheartedly approve.
P.S. I did not go with my initial inclination of linking the Google Images page for Fournier's gangrene. Go ahead...click it...I dare you.
However, wouldn't you argue that having a disease named after yourself can in some ways be entirely beneficial? Lou Gehrig, for example- while he would likely rather be remembered for his baseball career than for his disease, having his name connected to it raises awareness and sympathy for all those who suffer from it (many more people have heard about the disease due to its connection to him than if it were simply referred to as Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and it was known in certain circles that Lou Gehrig happened to have died from it). While it may not be his preferred legacy, Gherig has likely made life easier for ALS sufferers purely by contracting it and it's being named after him. This is not a bad legacy to have, even for a famous baseball player, and all the more so for some random guy who got sick and died.
ReplyDelete