Gazda István
Magyar Tudománytörténeti és Egészségtudományi Intézet Budapest, Bem József u. 8., 1027.
Orv Hetil. 2018 Jul;159(26):1055-1064. doi: 10.1556/650.2018.31174.
In this article we examine why Semmelweis's seemingly simple, logical and practical discovery was categorically dismissed by the majority of his contemporaries, and why even many years after his death it was accepted with such reservation. We invoke wherever possible Semmelweis's own words citing from the series of articles appearing in the 'Orvosi Hetilap' [Hungarian Medical Weekly Journal] published in 1858 in Hungary, and also from the German language summary of the Journal published in 1860. We came to the conclusion that although Semmelweis did everything in his power to show the causal relationship between the development of puerperal fever (childbed fever) and some infectious substance on the hands of examining doctors and medical students, this was not convincing enough. The predominant theory at the time held that infection was caused by miasma transmitted in the air and therefore stubbornly precluded any notion of infectious matter physically transmitted on unclean hands. We also concluded that the causal sequence observed by Semmelweis was missing an essential empirical element: visual proof of the infectious agent he correctly postulated as physically transmitted. Visually demonstrating the presence of the infectious agent by means of a microscope would have made his case. This finally did occur but only two years after Semmelweis's death. Had the renowned Hungarian obstetrician realized the significance of taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by Dávid Gruby who was conducting experiments in the same town, a more convincing argument could have been made for his theory. In the 1840s and 1850s, Dávid Gruby was experimenting with various microscopic techniques and their application with success in Vienna before continuing his work in France. Gruby's work, especially that of microscopic observations of tissues, received international acceptance. Therefore, the involvement of Gruby and his work with microscopes to support Semmelweis's observations would most probably have forestalled much of the criticism and rejection his theory was initially awarded (among which perhaps Virchow's rejection proved the most damaging). Had Semmelweis utilized microscopic techniques, he would have been celebrated among the first to discover bacterial pathogens, contributing to the development of the currently predominant germ theory. Failure to utilize the microscope was the root cause leading to the tragedy of Semmelweis's rejection by the medical establishment of the time. Despite the increasing numbers of scientists utilizing the microscope at the University of Pest, offered to corroborate his daims with microscopic observations. Efforts have been made have since been to rehabilitate him as the key figure who not only discovered the method of transmission of infectious disease, but also implemented measures of prevention. Elevating him among the ranks of the ten greatest doctors who ever lived is certainly recognition due, but sadly denied to him in his lifetime. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(26): 1055-1064.
在本文中,我们探讨了为什么塞麦尔维斯看似简单、合乎逻辑且实用的发现被他的大多数同代人断然否定,以及为什么即使在他去世多年后,人们对其发现的接受仍有所保留。我们尽可能引用了塞麦尔维斯本人的话,这些话出自1858年在匈牙利发表于《匈牙利医学周刊》(Orvosi Hetilap)上的一系列文章,以及1860年该杂志的德语摘要。我们得出的结论是,尽管塞麦尔维斯竭尽全力展示产褥热(产后发热)的发展与检查医生和医学生手上的某些传染源之间的因果关系,但这还不够有说服力。当时的主流理论认为,感染是由空气中传播的瘴气引起的,因此坚决排除了不洁手上物理传播传染源的任何概念。我们还得出结论,塞麦尔维斯观察到的因果序列缺少一个关键的实证要素:他正确假设为物理传播的传染源的视觉证据。通过显微镜直观地证明传染源的存在本可以支持他的观点。这最终确实发生了,但却是在塞麦尔维斯去世两年后。如果这位著名的匈牙利产科医生意识到利用同在一个城镇进行实验的大卫·格鲁比提供的机会的重要性,他的理论本可以有更有说服力的论据。在19世纪40年代和50年代,大卫·格鲁比在维也纳成功地试验了各种显微镜技术及其应用,之后在法国继续他的工作。格鲁比的工作,尤其是对组织的显微镜观察,得到了国际认可。因此,格鲁比及其显微镜工作对塞麦尔维斯观察结果的支持很可能会避免他的理论最初遭到的许多批评和拒绝(其中也许维尔肖的拒绝造成的损害最大)。如果塞麦尔维斯利用了显微镜技术,他很可能会成为最早发现细菌病原体的人之一,为当前占主导地位的细菌学说的发展做出贡献。未能利用显微镜是导致塞麦尔维斯被当时的医学界拒绝这一悲剧的根本原因。尽管佩斯大学越来越多的科学家使用显微镜,愿意用显微镜观察来证实他的说法。此后人们一直在努力恢复他作为不仅发现传染病传播方法,还实施预防措施的关键人物的地位。将他提升到有史以来最伟大的十位医生之列当然是他应得的认可,但遗憾的是他在世时被剥夺了这一认可。《匈牙利医学周刊》。2018年;159(26):1055 - 1064。