[Theoretical concepts of modern pathology (a critique of their medical philosophical foundations)].

Separation of theoretical pathology into an independent branch of science seems to be justified and creation of the Centre of Theoretical pathology in the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences is due and useful. As W. Doerr truly states, the theoretical pathology seems to be over the pathological physiology and general pathology, exerts additional functions, studies questions of the methodology in pathology, defines more exactly and analyzes the notion of disease, other concepts and terms, clarifies early preclinical and clinical disease manifestations, determines sociological and psychological factors of disease. However, we are not in full agreement with our colleagues from the FRG in the definition of "disease" and in the interpretation of such categories as "spirit", "soul", "psychic". K. Rotschuh' suggestion to consider the disease in terms of "body-soul" appears to be interesting but to be productive, it must be linked with the problems of medical psychology. W. Doerr and his colleagues support the dualistic concepts of human nature which is unacceptable for us; they claim that the understanding of the theoretical pathology essence is possible only on the basis of theleology and spirit (theology). As the highest commencenment on the way of the theoretical pathology recognition W. Doerr's categorical declaration that theoretical pathology based on the "gestalttheorie" returns scientists, as he writes" to their great delight, to the possibility of studying "spiritual essence of the disease". In W. Doerr's opinion, studying the concept of theoretical pathology "from the spiritual point of view" will ensure its brilliant future. Of course, we, Soviet pathologists and philosophers, do not reject the significance of the integrity theory in the meaning of the disease psycophysiological integrity, yet we decidedly reject any idealistic concepts. W. Doeer and his colleagues are right that the theoretical pathology stimulates the search of the approaches to the solution of complex biomedical problems, favours the creation of more precise definitions and terminology. Likewise, W. Doerr is right that he sharply condemns the attempts of some pathologists to substitute qualitative differences in pathological processes by quantitative ones; this may result, in his view, in one-sided erroneous conclusions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)