- Email: [email protected]
Additional Comments
Additional Comments· 1081
Additional Comments to "European Centre of Pathology as a Basis of Progress of European Pathology in the Future"
R. Heimann, President of the European Society of Pathology (ESP) Brussels, Belgium
In this paper, as previously 1, 2, the author expresses his belief in the necessity for creating a European Centre of Pathology. The aims of this centre are listed in 14 points which may be gathered under 3 main headings: 1) The collection of data 2) The elaboration of guidelines 3) The organization of meetings and the control of journals. I have to admit that even after repeated careful reading, I still have major problems in trying to comprehend the author's phraseology. Besides, it seems to me that a lot of these points overlap and are redundant. For instance, where does point 6 end and point 3 start? Is "the study of problems of... morphogenesis of diseases" not encompassed in "the analysis of intravital diagnosis of the character of pathological processes"? What does the author mean by "scientific and practical control by means of comparison of clinical and pathoanatomical diagnoses, study, generalization, analysis and investigation of clinical and pathoanatomical data"? In point 4, the author mentions the timely detection and prevention of acute infectious epidemical diseases. It seems to me that nowadays, except for some odd African viruses, most infectious diseases are diagnosed before the patients reach the autopsy table. In addition to the WHO, many countries have their own national institutions whose mission is precisely to deal with the prevention, control and eradication of infectious diseases. The role of the pathologist, however crucial, has to be integrated in a multidisciplinary team including clinicians, public health officers, microbiologists, virologists and epidemiologists. This comment also partially applies to point 8. Where point 11 is concerned, we all have our networks of experts to whom we send our problematic cases. There also are active groups of experts within the European Society of Pathology (ESP) such as the Head and Neck Group who could act as pannels for consultation cases. There is no need in my view to superimpose an intermediate bureaucratic step. Does the author really believe that we need a central organization to decide when and where we should hold our meetings? Indeed, sometimes meetings clash and
this could be avoided to some extent, but again, do we need to build up a huge centralized organization in order to prevent this? Point 13 deals with "exercising control" over publishing books and journals to quote the author's own words! To put it mildly, I have some reservations about allowing Big Brother to decide which books should be published and which journals authorized! It seems to me that the best way to manage a journal is to take account of the feedback it gets from the readers: i. e., the number of subscriptions and the positive objective criteria measuring its popularity such as the impact factor. There are a few interesting suggestions in Dr. Zubritsky's paper, such as the attempts at standardization and the creation of a school for training personnel. It would be a very good thing indeed, if not only physicians attended meetings - but, this could be implemented within the framework of the ESP (as, for instance, the European School of Pathology). I am certainly not against big institutions on principle. The American Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), for instance, seems quite an efficient structure, but it is a national one and the decisive factor of its success is that it is subsidized by the U.S. army. If we try to build up a similar organisation at the European level, it will immediately become entangled in petty politics: each country will fight for the cushy jobs. This is just a personal feeling, but as I live in Brussels, I cannot help having a cynical or at least a realistic opinion on these matters. In conclusion, I really do not think that there is any need to create a big bureaucratic structure such as the one proposed by Dr. Zubritsky, even if it is located in a lovely spot like Innsbruck. Besides, I cannot imagine who would find the "pretty pennies" needed for building and running such a centre.
References 1 2
Zubritsky A (1993) Path Res Pract 189: 848 Zubritsky A (1993) Path Res Pract 191: 826
Prof. R. Heimann, Dept. of Pathology, Academic Hospital Free University of Brussels, AZ-VUB, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
Additional Comments to "European Centre of Pathology as a Basis of Progress of European Pathology in the Future"
R. Heimann, President of the European Society of Pathology (ESP) Brussels, Belgium
In this paper, as previously 1, 2, the author expresses his belief in the necessity for creating a European Centre of Pathology. The aims of this centre are listed in 14 points which may be gathered under 3 main headings: 1) The collection of data 2) The elaboration of guidelines 3) The organization of meetings and the control of journals. I have to admit that even after repeated careful reading, I still have major problems in trying to comprehend the author's phraseology. Besides, it seems to me that a lot of these points overlap and are redundant. For instance, where does point 6 end and point 3 start? Is "the study of problems of... morphogenesis of diseases" not encompassed in "the analysis of intravital diagnosis of the character of pathological processes"? What does the author mean by "scientific and practical control by means of comparison of clinical and pathoanatomical diagnoses, study, generalization, analysis and investigation of clinical and pathoanatomical data"? In point 4, the author mentions the timely detection and prevention of acute infectious epidemical diseases. It seems to me that nowadays, except for some odd African viruses, most infectious diseases are diagnosed before the patients reach the autopsy table. In addition to the WHO, many countries have their own national institutions whose mission is precisely to deal with the prevention, control and eradication of infectious diseases. The role of the pathologist, however crucial, has to be integrated in a multidisciplinary team including clinicians, public health officers, microbiologists, virologists and epidemiologists. This comment also partially applies to point 8. Where point 11 is concerned, we all have our networks of experts to whom we send our problematic cases. There also are active groups of experts within the European Society of Pathology (ESP) such as the Head and Neck Group who could act as pannels for consultation cases. There is no need in my view to superimpose an intermediate bureaucratic step. Does the author really believe that we need a central organization to decide when and where we should hold our meetings? Indeed, sometimes meetings clash and
this could be avoided to some extent, but again, do we need to build up a huge centralized organization in order to prevent this? Point 13 deals with "exercising control" over publishing books and journals to quote the author's own words! To put it mildly, I have some reservations about allowing Big Brother to decide which books should be published and which journals authorized! It seems to me that the best way to manage a journal is to take account of the feedback it gets from the readers: i. e., the number of subscriptions and the positive objective criteria measuring its popularity such as the impact factor. There are a few interesting suggestions in Dr. Zubritsky's paper, such as the attempts at standardization and the creation of a school for training personnel. It would be a very good thing indeed, if not only physicians attended meetings - but, this could be implemented within the framework of the ESP (as, for instance, the European School of Pathology). I am certainly not against big institutions on principle. The American Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), for instance, seems quite an efficient structure, but it is a national one and the decisive factor of its success is that it is subsidized by the U.S. army. If we try to build up a similar organisation at the European level, it will immediately become entangled in petty politics: each country will fight for the cushy jobs. This is just a personal feeling, but as I live in Brussels, I cannot help having a cynical or at least a realistic opinion on these matters. In conclusion, I really do not think that there is any need to create a big bureaucratic structure such as the one proposed by Dr. Zubritsky, even if it is located in a lovely spot like Innsbruck. Besides, I cannot imagine who would find the "pretty pennies" needed for building and running such a centre.
References 1 2
Zubritsky A (1993) Path Res Pract 189: 848 Zubritsky A (1993) Path Res Pract 191: 826
Prof. R. Heimann, Dept. of Pathology, Academic Hospital Free University of Brussels, AZ-VUB, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium