Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 55-56. (Budapest, 1970)

TANULMÁNYOK - Zoltán Imre: Semmelweis (angol nyelvű közlemény)

THE ILLNESS AND DEATH OF SEMMELWEIS ' I 'he Hungarian Semmelweis-literature, which started with the publication **• of József Fleischer's memorial speech (I), has been examining the oeuvre of the greatest figure in the past of Hungarian medicine for nearly a hundred years. We are proud to say that the century has not seen a richer period in writings on Semmelweis than the recent years, which are linked with the centenary of his death (1965) and the 150th anniversary of his birth. Two monographs appeared on Semmelweis : Gy. Gortvay and /. Zoltán, Semmelweis — His Life and Work (2) and István Benedek, Semmelweis and His Times (3). In addition there is a much discussed book on his death (4) together with a number of articles (many of them in our journal) based on new research and raising new questions (5). Foreign authors, too, have made a lot of valuable studies, these were made use of by the scholars of this country. The researches, books, and articles of Professor Erna Lesky of Vienna (0) deserve special credit; these provided not only excellent source material, but greatly contributed to the formation of a realist Semmelweis picture, even if there must necessarily be differences between Austrian and Hungarian historians and medical historians in the evaluation of their common past, as in the period under discussion the differences between the two countries often seemed irreconcilable. Hungarian medical historical literature has come to, or at least near to, and understanding in appraising the life and work of Semmelweis, the Semmelweisdoctrine. The debates about priority or about the raising of the question of priority have subsided, the misunderstandings have been dispelled, and now the portrait of Semmelweis is clearer and brighter than ever before. But still there is a question, or rather a group of questions where there is no agreement and there seems to be little chance of achieving it soon. That is the illness and death of Semmelweis. The earlier Semmelweis-literature did not contest the fact of Semmelweis's mental disorder, or its origin. The examinations and studies of Gyula RegölyMérei, László Haranghy, Gyula Nyirő, and their book (7), attributed Semmelweis's illness to the sepsis which caused his death, they regarded his derangement as a septic delirium and categorically denied its luetic origin. István Benedek opposed this view in several articles and in a book (8), and maintained the possibility of paralysis progressiva in formulating his own „past diagnosis", 3 Orvostörténeti Közlemények 55—56.