Quick Question
Ok, quick question (im too tired to write anything substantial).
If a new disease(or condition) is discovered should it be named after the Dr. who discovers it? Or the first person who has it?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
i think its up to the doctor, and depends on the doctor.
See, I've been thinking about this, and I think, that if you find a cure or any kind of treatment, before someone else is diagnosed, then the doctor should be names after it. If not, then the 1st patient should.
do they even name diseases after people like that anymore? -example- AIDS, Ebolai (<---complete guess at spelling)
AIDS and Ebola both came from monkeys (I think). That could be why they're different.
I'm thinking that diseases should be named after the person with the cooler last name. ie. Dr. Smith diagnoses Mr. Zaranowski with some new disease. I'd much rather be worried about Zaranowski syndrome than Smith syndrome. Sounds so much more terrifying.
yeah i think the person who HAS the disease gets to name it, and if they have a boring last name, then they can pick their own!
Post a Comment