This article examines the development of urology as an independent medical discipline in Germany, with a particular focus on professionalization and specialization in the 19th and 20th centuries. Based on historical sources, the text illuminates the importance of the German medical profession\'s further training regulations as an instrument of medical self-administration and the classification of urology as a medical specialty in the Bremen guidelines of 1924, which established board certification in diseases of the urinary organs (urology).
UNASSIGNED: Dieser Artikel untersucht die Entwicklung der Urologie als eigenständige medizinische Disziplin in Deutschland mit besonderem Fokus auf die Professionalisierung und Spezialisierung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Basierend auf historischen Quellen beleuchtet der Text die Bedeutung der Weiterbildungsordnungen der deutschen Ärzteschaft als Instrument der ärztlichen Selbstverwaltung und die Einordnung der Urologie als Sonderfach der Medizin in den Bremer Richtlinien von 1924, welche den Facharzt für Erkrankungen der Harnorgane (Urologie) etablierten.

This article explores the allure of \"great men\" in medical history through a comparative account of the work and lives of Jean-Martin Charcot and his student and collaborator, Désiré-Magloire Bourneville, in late nineteenth-century France. While historians of science and medicine have self-consciously rejected Whiggish and hagiographic \"great man\" history, the fixity of certain historical actors within our social and cultural histories reveals the continued hold of these figures and what they stand for within the grand narrative. The privileging of institutional and intellectual contributions has been perpetuated in such a way that bottom-up experiences and contributions in realms such as public health have been neglected. I argue that the continued prominence of certain historical medical figures, like Charcot, over forgotten contemporaries, like Bourneville, is representative of the way that historians of science and medicine have implicitly privileged intellectual contributions over social, political, or structural contributions.
Résumé. Cet article explore l’attrait pour les « grands hommes » dans l’histoire de la médecine, en comparant la vie et l’œuvre de Jean-Martin Charcot et de son élève et collaborateur, Désiré-Magloire Bourneville, dans la France de la fin du XIXe siècle. Bien que le milieu de l’histoire des sciences et de la médecine ait plus ou moins rejeté les approches historiques fondées sur le whiggisme et l’hagiographie des « grands hommes », la permanence de certains acteurs historiques dans notre histoire sociale et culturelle révèle l’emprise que ces figures conservent sur les grands récits et le rôle qu’elles continuent d’y jouer. Le privilège accordé aux contributions institutionnelles et intellectuelles s’est perpétué, de telle sorte que les expériences et les apports provenant de la base dans des domaines comme la santé publique sont demeurés dans l’ombre. Je soutiens ici que l’attention reçue sans cesse par certains personnages de l’histoire de la médecine, tel Charcot, au détriment de leurs contemporains ayant sombré dans l’oubli, tel Bourneville, est représentative de la manière dont les historiens et les historiennes des sciences et de la médecine privilégient toujours, implicitement, les contributions intellectuelles plutôt que les contributions sociales, politiques ou structurelles.

In 1783, Alexander Monro secundus maintained that because the brain is enclosed in a case of bone and its substance is nearly incompressible, the quantity of blood within the head must be the same, or very nearly the same, at all times. Years later, this hypothesis was experimentally supported by George Kellie, and became known as the Monro-Kellie doctrine. However, this doctrine encountered resistance. Its reviewers have agreed to point out the historically understandable error of not having considered the CSF as a normal intracranial volume. Yet, almost nothing has been published about some of the physiological, pathophysiological, and therapeutic ideas prevailing at that time that may have influenced Monro\'s hypothesis. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is not clear why Monro, who knew the ventricular system in detail, did not include it as a potential compensatory compartment for changes in the intracranial blood volume.

It is little appreciated not only how closely linked are the disciplines of neurology, psychiatry, and anthropology but even more so the degree to which they share a \"common ancestry\". This paper briefly reviews the definition and historical origins of each area of study to then begin to illustrate how their \"genealogies\" overlap. This illustration is by way of a sampling of the many key figures who contributed to the rise of not just neuropsychiatry or anthropology but both disciplines. That is, a selective review is undertaken of paragons whose careers bridged medicine, neuropsychiatry, and anthropology. A sampling from among the dozens who have made major contributions to spanning these disciplines illuminates the significant extent of their co-mingled intellectual ancestry. This series is akin to a data table of necessarily concise biographical vignettes - past scholars with some or full medical training who also advanced both anthropology and neuropsychiatry as these disciplines grew into intellectual maturity. Each is, in a sense, a data point that bolsters the overarching thesis that the intellectual history of both disciplines has shared ancestry. Thus, even this preliminary and topical survey of a few past \"exemplars\" underscores the importance of this unique intellectual siblingship. Moreover, there is now a profusion of living scholars who add fulsomely to what might be deemed this \'trilateral marriage\' of anthropology, psychiatry, and neurology. A compilation of more contemporary contributors is well worthy of a future review that expands from this first consideration. This initial work is meant to engender more robust scholarship that better elucidates and, thereby, enriches and enlivens further work while also uncovering new avenues of deeper insight, notably as to the \"conceptual and heuristic progression\" of evolutionary neurosciences with respect to the normative and pathologic.

Abraham Flexner\'s 1910 report on medical education is widely regarded as a watershed moment in the history of modern medicine in the US and beyond. Most commentators focus on its administrative and managerial impact, despite Flexner dedicating a sizeable portion of his report to a theoretical account of the kind of medicine that he seeks to implement. Close attention to these sections reveals a surprisingly coherent account of medicine that, based on a Deweyan Pragmatist philosophy of science, unites scientific investigator and medical practitioner in a new experimental paradigm of science. Flexner can develop an account that goes beyond a mere epistemic redefinition of medicine, providing the profession with a social, cultural, and ethical identity that avails itself of the extremely wide purview that Dewey granted to modern science. Due to the subsequent narrowing of philosophy of science to a delimited academic subdiscipline, these broad Pragmatist philosophical commitments at the roots of Flexner\'s scientific medicine remained a largely unexplored intellectual legacy.

Infection control remains a significant burden for healthcare systems. The irrational use of antibiotics in the fight against microbial diseases has led to the fast development of antimicrobial resistance. Considering how the latter can adversely influence the effectiveness of modern treatments and the way medicine is practiced, we should revise the events that led to the establishment of the general principles of antisepsis and pay special tribute to the people who contributed to their formation, bearing in mind that they remain unmodified to a great extent until today. Without Semmelweis\' conceptualization of the idea of direct transmission of sepsis, Pasteur\'s emblematic figure that helped promote the idea even further, and Lister\'s methodology structuring, the scientific community would have significantly delayed winning the battle against germs.

The publication is the only monograph in Russia devoted to description of history of development of irreversible non-selective inhibitors of mono-amine oxidase. It is the first group of antidepressants becoming available for physicians to be applied in clinical practice. The necessity of such publications is obvious because information presented through history perspective permits to better understand process of formation of modern practical guidelines of applying psychotropic drugs. The monograph presents well structured thorough systematization and detailed analysis of data of history of irreversible non-selective inhibitors of mono-amine oxidase. The text includes multitude of facts of scientific interest. For example, application of drug in the USSR, Russia and other countries of post-Soviet space, input of specialists from these countries into development of psycho-pharmacotherapy, experience of using inhibitors of mono-amine oxidase in treatment of somatic diseases. In addition, every chapter presents many historical excursus into important general psychiatric and even general medical issues. The monograph undoubtedly will arise interest among psychiatrists, neurologists, pharmacologists, etc.

The scientific biography of Vasily Dmitrievich Shervinsky, the classic of Russian therapy is described in a number of articles and monographs. However, uncovered materials and results of our studies require to specify certain aspects of his biography and his scientific school.

The article considers evaluation of works of colleagues and contemporaries of N. P. Kravkov, the creator of \"Russian narcosis\" with hedonal. The hidden and explicit, objective and subjective factors that prevented spreading of application of discovery of Russian scientists, both in Russia and abroad, are established. The dependence of self-esteem of Russian surgeons of XIX - early XX centuries on recognition of their scientific efforts in Germany is emphasized.

The year of 1992 is very important milestone in history of Russian pharmaceutical market. It began not in January 1922, but in December 1991, when the President and Government enactments to open free market for medications were promulgated. The advisers of B. N. Yeltsin considered market economy as reliable mean to overcome medicinal deficiencies, corruption and bureaucratic monopoly. However, panacea did not work. Moreover, it caused completely new problems. The human and state security implies protection from threats of dependencies. The unprepared dive into market plunged Russians and the country into severe dependence on import of medications and foreign pharmaceutical companies. The proposed study expands our publications in this journal and in journal \"Pharmacy\" in 2022. At that time, analysis of medication scarcity was implemented on the basis of published sources and relied on journalistic evidences. The current study is carried out on the basis of archival documents of the Ministry of Health Care of the Russian Federation and authors interviews of representatives of regulator. The second report reconstructs the sequence of the emergence and correlation of the structural elements of the Russian pharmaceutical market.