Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 55-56. (Budapest, 1970)
TANULMÁNYOK - Zoltán Imre: Semmelweis (angol nyelvű közlemény)
A considerable part of the recent literature, including the monograph by Gortvay and Zoltán, adopted the conception of the book by Regöly-Mérei, Haranghy and Nyirő, while others keep to the opposite view. Still others question the former but do not take stands in writing. There was some hope that the article by István Darvas on the documents kept in Vienna which had been considered to be lost (9) will provide the debate with new data, but this hope has not materialized yet. That led the Editorial Board to request the two differing authors, Gyula. Regöly-Mérei and István Benedek, to expound their views again in the Communicationes de História Artis Medicináé, to set forth their arguments so that both the home and foreign readers could judge them. Regöly-Mérei agreed to sum up those questions, too, which were earlier discussed by his fellow-authors. As a third author Endre Réti, who edited the recently published Masters of the Hungarian Medical School, is summing up his views. Others did not wish to contribute directly to the debate and took sides only in a few sentences.* As there is no common opinion in that question we wish to mark the „front line" and thus facilitate further research by publishing the two contradicting views simultaneously. We do that in the belief that the debate does not affect the personality of Semmelweis and his role in medical history, while it does not bar the way to the clarification of the details either. The Editors NOTES 1. Fleischer, József : Emlékbeszéd Semmelweis Ignácz tanár felett. = Orvosi Hetilap 1872. 775. 2. Gortvay, György—Zoltán, Imre: Semmelweis élete és munkássága. Bp. 1966, — English: Semmelweis — His Life and Work. Bp. 1968. 3. Benedek, István : Semmelweis és kora. Bp. 1967. * In answering our request Tibor Trencséni wrote: ".. .1 have to set down that I am not a' Semmelweis-researcher', have no 'older works' specifically on Semmelweis, consequently I do not feel myself entitled to set forth my modest opinion (which I do have) in the distinguished company of the Semmelweis-experts. .. In order to avoid any misunderstanding I wish to make it clear that even after Regöly-Mérei's memorable lecture in 1958 I continue to agree with those who do not accept the new interpretation of Semmelweis's illness, namely thet Semmelweis's psychosis had been a septic delirium. Psychiatric diagnosis, which is lagging far behind organic diagnosis in the development of modern medicine, is frequently in a quandary even when the patient to be examined is alive, not to say when the patient has been dead for more than a hundred years like Semmelweis. Yet common sense forbids me to accept thet the 'derangement' of Semmelweis when reading the oath of the midwives at the meeting of the Faculty discussing the appointment of assistants, resulted from a septic-feverish delirium. To accept that would mean such an underestimation of the judgement of those attending the faculty meeting, which sharply contradicts the facts recorded by Hungarian medical history about the medical-clinical standard of the members in the medical faculty at that time."
