[The anti-diphtheria serum and the case of Langerhans].

Axel C Hüntelmann
{"title":"[The anti-diphtheria serum and the case of Langerhans].","authors":"Axel C Hüntelmann","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An eighteen-month old boy called Ernst Langerhans died shortly after being injected with a prophylactic dose of anti-diphtheria serum in April 1896. The father, a well-known pathologist in Berlin, claimed, in the obituary notice, that his son had been poisoned by Behring's anti-diphtheria serum. This paper describes the tragic events of Spring 1896: the death of Ernst Langerhans, the official investigations that followed as well as the reactions in the daily newspapers and the medical journals. The death of Ernst Langerhans afforded the opponents of the new serotherapy an opportunity to call into question the whole immunological concept. Supporters of the serotherapy, in turn, defended it against these attacks. The spectacular nature of Ernst Langerhans's death combined with the fact that he came from a prominent family of physicians made the event a public scandal. The tuberculine affair which had happened only a few years earlier was another reason for the public concern. Finally, the \"Langerhans case\" was a scandal because of the way in which Robert Langerhans published the death notice also causing resentment within the scientific community. Indeed, the publication of the accusation was one of the reasons why the \"Langerhans case\" failed to provoke a crisis with respect to the new therapy, as the central argument was displaced onto wider ethical questions. Furthermore, the medical administration had learned from the tuberculine affair, and had subsequently implemented a large confidence-inspiring system of quality control. The \"official\" cause of death, following the investigations into the case, was proclaimed to be an accident; a tragic piece of bad luck.</p>","PeriodicalId":81975,"journal":{"name":"Medizin, Gesellschaft, und Geschichte : Jahrbuch des Instituts fur Geschichte der Medizin der Robert Bosch Stiftung","volume":"24 ","pages":"71-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medizin, Gesellschaft, und Geschichte : Jahrbuch des Instituts fur Geschichte der Medizin der Robert Bosch Stiftung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An eighteen-month old boy called Ernst Langerhans died shortly after being injected with a prophylactic dose of anti-diphtheria serum in April 1896. The father, a well-known pathologist in Berlin, claimed, in the obituary notice, that his son had been poisoned by Behring's anti-diphtheria serum. This paper describes the tragic events of Spring 1896: the death of Ernst Langerhans, the official investigations that followed as well as the reactions in the daily newspapers and the medical journals. The death of Ernst Langerhans afforded the opponents of the new serotherapy an opportunity to call into question the whole immunological concept. Supporters of the serotherapy, in turn, defended it against these attacks. The spectacular nature of Ernst Langerhans's death combined with the fact that he came from a prominent family of physicians made the event a public scandal. The tuberculine affair which had happened only a few years earlier was another reason for the public concern. Finally, the "Langerhans case" was a scandal because of the way in which Robert Langerhans published the death notice also causing resentment within the scientific community. Indeed, the publication of the accusation was one of the reasons why the "Langerhans case" failed to provoke a crisis with respect to the new therapy, as the central argument was displaced onto wider ethical questions. Furthermore, the medical administration had learned from the tuberculine affair, and had subsequently implemented a large confidence-inspiring system of quality control. The "official" cause of death, following the investigations into the case, was proclaimed to be an accident; a tragic piece of bad luck.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[抗白喉血清与朗格汉斯病例]。
1896年4月,一个名叫恩斯特·朗格汉斯的18个月大的男孩在注射了预防剂量的抗白喉血清后不久死亡。他的父亲是柏林一位著名的病理学家,他在讣告中声称,他的儿子是被贝林的抗白喉血清毒死的。本文描述了1896年春天发生的悲惨事件:恩斯特·朗格汉斯的死亡,随后的官方调查以及日报和医学杂志上的反应。恩斯特·朗格汉斯(Ernst Langerhans)的死,给了新血清疗法的反对者一个质疑整个免疫学概念的机会。反过来,血清疗法的支持者为其辩护,反对这些攻击。恩斯特·朗格汉斯之死的壮观性质,加上他出身于一个显赫的医生家庭,使这一事件成为公众的丑闻。几年前发生的结核病事件是引起公众关注的另一个原因。最后,“朗格汉斯案”是一个丑闻,因为罗伯特·朗格汉斯发布死亡通知的方式也引起了科学界的不满。事实上,这一指控的公布是“朗格汉斯案例”未能引发新疗法危机的原因之一,因为中心论点被转移到了更广泛的伦理问题上。此外,医疗管理部门从结核病事件中吸取了教训,随后实施了一套鼓舞信心的质量控制系统。在对案件进行调查之后,"官方"死因被宣布为意外事故;一次悲惨的坏运气。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Poverty and Sickness. The precarious lives of lower-class families in Würzburg and Göttingen, 1800-1850]. [The Hygienist Karl Roelcke, M.D. (1907-1982). Annotations to the family biography]. [Gender images in health education: a comparison between East and West Germany (1949-1990)]. [Protestant clergymen among Hahnemann's clientele. Patient histories in letters]. [The company Willmar Schwabe in the Nazi era].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1