Cranbury, NJ.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep;225(3):310-324. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.06.054. Epub 2021 Jun 16.
Anglophone narratives of Semmelweis's discovery of the cause and prophylaxis of childbed (puerperal) fever are based on a deficient historical record because important information about what happened to Semmelweis in Vienna, Austria, is contained in primary documents that had never been translated into English until very recently. The gaps in these narratives have been filled with invented facts and causal attributions that traduce Semmelweis by berating his character, education, and writing proficiency to hold him solely responsible for the rejection of his theory by most of his contemporaries and to explain the most puzzling aspect of his life: why he did not publish the results of his groundbreaking research in a medical journal for 11 years. This article presents the historical evidence contained in these primary documents that were missing from previous narratives and that provide very rational and understandable explanations for Semmelweis's actions. It also presents evidence that flatly contradicts the claims that have been made about Semmelweis's character, education, and writing skills and offers a more veridical portrayal of what happened to Semmelweis in Vienna that caused him to leave the city and delay publishing his results.
英语叙事中有关塞梅尔魏斯发现产褥热（产后热）病因和预防方法的内容所依据的历史记录并不完整，因为有关塞梅尔魏斯在奥地利维也纳所发生的重要信息都包含在原始文件中，直到最近这些原始文件才被首次翻译成英文。这些叙述中的空白部分被虚构的事实和因果关系所填补，这些虚构的事实和因果关系通过诋毁塞梅尔魏斯的性格、教育和写作能力来指责他，将他独自归咎于他的理论被大多数同时代人所拒绝，并解释了他一生中最令人费解的方面：为什么他在 11 年内没有在医学期刊上发表他具有开创性的研究结果。本文介绍了这些原始文件中所包含的历史证据，这些证据在之前的叙述中缺失，为塞梅尔魏斯的行为提供了非常合理和可以理解的解释。它还提供了与关于塞梅尔魏斯性格、教育和写作能力的说法截然相反的证据，并对导致塞梅尔魏斯离开维也纳并延迟发表研究结果的维也纳事件提供了一个更真实的描述。
