Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 66-68. (Budapest, 1973)
FORUM - Semmelweis kórtörténetének nyomában — Bécs és Budapest levelezése (magyar, angol és német nyelven)
"It is known that the clinical case history of Semmelweis disappeared without trace. The search carried out by Tibor Győry, Felix Boenheim and Joseph Keller just as by myself — proved uneffective, similarly to the attempts of other medical historians. Asked by professor Haranghy, Chiary, professor of pathological anatomy in Vienna tried to find the case history, too, without any success (1958)."* Among the "other medical historians" there is however one person who does not share this same view, although he cannot present the case history either. It is István Darvas legal historian, aged 82, who has been searching for the documents referring to Semmelweis's illness for eight years and states that with constant investigation he succeeded in tracing the missing case history. He says that the case history does exist it is preserved in a foreign institute which on the other hand does not want to hand it over. Darvas says that he possesses documents which prove the existence of the case history beyond any doubt, but he could not get the original papers despite the support of distinguised authorities, what is more he was not even allowed to have an insight into to text of the case history. Since he seemed to be confronted with lack of understanding on the part of Hungarian medical historians, too (in as much as they simply did not believe his story) Darvas refused to reveal the proveniance of the documents,** Consequently, the Semmelweis mystery is getting more intricate: if the case history does exist, why is it concealed, by whom and where? Cui prodest—the jurist asks. Whose interest is to hide the case history? Seeing these uncertainties—it is not sure that it exist, if it exist why cannot it be seen—assumptions can be made only with great audicaty. Nevertheless, I venture saying that if there is a case history and it cannot be presented to publicity it has but one reason: one is ashamed of its content. But why to be ashamed? The mental disorder of Semmelweis was not a thing to be ashemed of hundred years ago, why should it be ashamed cf to-day? There is one thing they sould be ashamed of which might turn out from the case history: their own attitude, the fact that they handled him utterly wrong and they did not care for him at all. Could they have done anything for him at all? Indeed, they could. Even if we accept the utterly improbable supposition that thoricic abscess and the serious injuries all over his bcdy were truly transferences and not the result of the brutal treating of the patient, they should have tried to open the abscesses surgically. Gyula Regöly-Mérei points out that this used to be the common medical treatment in these cases at that time and gees on saying: "In Semmelweis's case they failed to perform this method. It is almost beyond understanding why the operation, was not carried out in the Viennese Mental Hospital directed by professor Mildner on a patient under their care—who was at * The Illness of Semmelweis. Ed. Tivadar Hüttl. (Gyula Regöly-Mérei: The Disease of Semmelweis in the Light of Medical History.) Medicina, 1965. p. 14. ** Personal information.
