Hofer Hans-Georg
Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin, WWU Münster, Münster, Deutschland.
NTM. 2021 Dec;29(4):387-416. doi: 10.1007/s00048-021-00316-5. Epub 2021 Nov 4.
The 1949 congress of internal medicine saw a heated and widely perceived controversy on epistemological issues of psychosomatic medicine. This article begins by outlining the place and significance of the congress in post-war history and tracing the course of the debate. The positions of the proponents of psychosomatic medicine, Viktor von Weizsäcker and Alexander Mitscherlich, are reconstructed, as well as those of the internist Paul Martini, who offered fundamental criticisms on the basis of his methodology of clinical research. In a second step, the respective different understandings of causality, evidence, and subjectivity are elaborated and contextualized. A special focus is on Martini's explicit use of these terms as well as his further research initiatives. Finally, I argue that "1949" can be analyzed as the culmination of an ongoing controversy about scientific evidence in clinical medicine that spanned several decades with its participants and levels of reference.
1949年的内科医学大会上,围绕心身医学的认识论问题展开了一场激烈且被广泛关注的争论。本文首先概述该大会在战后历史中的地位和意义,并追溯辩论的过程。重构了心身医学支持者维克托·冯·魏茨泽克和亚历山大·米切尔利希的立场,以及内科医生保罗·马丁尼的立场,马丁尼基于其临床研究方法提出了根本性批评。第二步,阐述并结合背景分析了各方对因果关系、证据和主观性的不同理解。特别关注马丁尼对这些术语的明确使用及其进一步的研究倡议。最后,我认为“1949年”可被视为一场关于临床医学科学证据的持续数十年的争论的高潮,这场争论涉及不同参与者和参考层面。