ABSTRACT
The medical eponym is often viewed amongst the highest honours that can be bestowed upon a person in the field but, as of late, their usage has been contested on ethical, practical and epistemological grounds. The focus of these debates has been the traditional eponyms, where the alleged discoverer of a phenomenon has his or her name attributed to it. These account for two-thirds of all medical eponymy and are largely uniform in their structure and inability to convey clinical information. The remainder, the non-traditional eponyms, have not faced the same scrutiny. They are able to hide behind the view that they possess the potential to convey more clinical information than their traditional counterparts. In this belief, lies their undoing. Here they are viewed within a non-exhaustive novel taxonomy with three subdivisions – homo-eponym (from humanoid origin, e.g. Ulysses Syndrome), geo-eponym (from geographical origin, e.g. Paris Syndrome) and anima-eponym (from animal origin, e.g. Elephantiasis). Their susceptibility to misinterpretation, as a whole and within their subdivisions, lies in their lack of uniformity in formation and evaluation, which often requires obscure, ethnocentric or linguistically exclusive information to derive any additional meaning.
KEYWORDS:
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Conor O’Flynn
Conor O’Flynn received his MBChB from the University of Bristol, where he also gained a BA in Medical Humanities. Having completed the Foundation Programme at Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, he is entering into Emergency Medicine training at Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, whilst continuing to undertake postgraduate study in Medical Leadership at the University of Lancaster. His research interests include nineteenth Century medical history and medical linguistics.