Jeszke J
Arch Hist Filoz Med. 1995;58(4):453-65.
The author has presented the critical evaluation of Polish medical historiography, upbraiding it with concentration at the successes of scientific medicine, with not noticing this what is included into folk medicine or paramedicine and total lack of interest in patient. He can see the correct interest in social problems of medicine history only in works and centres dominated by the professional historians, not by the physicians. Despite the censorious opinion by the reviewer, the editorial staff has decided to publish the article accompanied by the answer to review, treating it as the introduction to methodological discussion between the medicine historians - physicians and historians - who are engaged in the history of medicine.
作者对波兰医学史编纂进行了批判性评估,指责其专注于科学医学的成就,忽视民间医学或辅助医学的内容,且对患者完全缺乏兴趣。他认为,只有在由专业历史学家而非医生主导的著作和研究中心中,才能看到对医学史社会问题的正确关注。尽管审稿人提出了批评意见,但编辑人员仍决定发表这篇文章,并附上对审稿意见的回复,将其视为医学史学家(医生和从事医学史研究的历史学家)之间方法论讨论的引言。