Survey Report: Eponyms Survive by the Skin of von Willebrand's Teeth

Just over half (55%) of the respondents to a MedPage Today poll said that eponyms are a convenient shorthand and should not be abandoned for more scientific terminology.

Eponyms -- words coined from the name of a person credited with a discovery, insight or action -- were the focus of a point-counterpoint debate published in the Sept. 1 issue of BMJ. (See: Willebrand's Disease or an Inherited Clotting Factor?)

Two physicians argued against the practice saying eponyms lack accuracy, lead to confusion, and hamper scientific discussion. They believe eponyms should be done away with.

The physician who argued in favor of the practice said eponyms are widely recognized and that abandoning them would be a monumental chore and not worth the effort.

MedPage Today asked visitors to lend their voices to the debate, and most of the 553 respondents said von Willebrand, Addison, Zollinger, et. al. should remain in the medical lexicon.

Noted one respondent, "not only are eponyms useful [e.g., Down's syndrome vs: 1) mongolian idiot or 2) trisomy 21 disease], but they also foster some knowledge of the history of medicine. A long-winded, misspelled and mispronounced and misinterpreted scientific-anatomic-pathologic description of the disease [not syndrome!] would only engender a cook-book approach."

"In addition," said another, "the giants whose shoulders we stand upon deserve to be remembered."

The 45% of respondents who checked "Yes, Addison, Zollinger, Ellison and the others didn't do anything that merits a permanent entry in Dorland's" did so for a variety of reasons.

Naming diseases after those who first described them is, said one respondent, "at many times, more a matter of the ego we're dealing with than with the condition itself, and that's unfortunate."

Said another, "Eponyms are useful. But a scientific descriptive term along with it - like Wilson's disease (hepatolenticular degeneration) - will be even more meaningful."

A colleague would reverse the naming convention: "The primary descriptor or generic is first with the "brand name" second. After all, being able to name an illness using the hyphenated names of two dead Russians and a dead Frenchmen who independently defined it may impress some, but it usually confuses our patients and colleagues."

Results of the survey might have been even closer had the answer choices been worded a bit differently.

Said one visitor, "Although I agree that eponyms lack specificity, I find I cannot agree with either choice. Stating that these great doctors did nothing of merit misses the point. Each should have an entry in Dorland's as the discoverer of the particular disease with a descriptive name given in the entry and further information available under the entry for that disease."