Search

Having dealt with Martini's understanding of causality and his procedural elements of evidence in the third part, the concluding article once again takes a historical perspective. It (1) traces the positionings and contexts of Martini's methodology in a sort of historical longitudinal section and (2) discusses the reasons for the rather reluctant response to his research programme in German and international medicine. We then focus (3) on Martini's understanding and concept of clinical research, the specific challenges he faced in post-war German medicine - and what remains of it today. Finally, we summarise the key findings of our article series and reflect on Martini's work in terms of its special nature and significance for clinical medicine in the 20 th century., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

This is the first contribution to a quadripartite series on Paul Martini, internist and early clinical epidemiologist (1889-1964), and his clinical proof ("klinischer Beweis"). Following a historical introduction and the presentation of our programme, the text deals with Martini as a person and his socio-cultural background between the end of the Great War and the 1960s. It throws light on his original, innovative and risky research programme, and outlines various factors which led Martini to his central life issue: the therapeutic-clinical proof based on controlled investigations., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

In 1933, the German Society for Internal Medicine (DGIM) willingly adapted to the ideology and politics of the Nazi regime. Seven members of the Society were Jewish women doctors, women making up 1 % of all members by that time. By pursuing a career in medicine, these women refused to take on the traditional woman's role, opting instead for an unusual path in life and making the medical profession their central mission despite difficult conditions. Under Nazi dictatorship, they were deprived of their livelihood, disenfranchised, persecuted and forced into exile. While this also applies to their male colleagues, Jewish women doctors are considerably less visible. This article presents and contextualises their biographies in order to increase their visibility and integrate them more explicitly into today's culture of remembrance., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

The 1949 congress of internal medicine saw a heated and widely perceived controversy on epistemological issues of psychosomatic medicine. This article begins by outlining the place and significance of the congress in post-war history and tracing the course of the debate. The positions of the proponents of psychosomatic medicine, Viktor von Weizsäcker and Alexander Mitscherlich, are reconstructed, as well as those of the internist Paul Martini, who offered fundamental criticisms on the basis of his methodology of clinical research. In a second step, the respective different understandings of causality, evidence, and subjectivity are elaborated and contextualized. A special focus is on Martini's explicit use of these terms as well as his further research initiatives. Finally, I argue that "1949" can be analyzed as the culmination of an ongoing controversy about scientific evidence in clinical medicine that spanned several decades with its participants and levels of reference., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

After decades of silence, the German Society for Internal Medicine (DGIM) has made considerable efforts to come to terms with its role and actions during the Nazi era (1933 to 1945). This is particularly important because, with more than 27 000 members, the DGIM is the largest medical society in present-day Germany. Since 1882, the society's annual congress in Wiesbaden has provided a forum and focus for the key medical topics of the day. Based on ongoing historical research, this article is organized in 2 parts. The first describes how the DGIM willingly adapted to the ideology and politics of the Nazi regime, showing no solidarity with its persecuted Jewish members. To illustrate their fates, the cases of Leopold Lichtwitz, who was forced to resign as elected chairman in 1933, and committee member Julius Bauer are investigated. Both men emigrated to the United States. Light is also shed on the decisions of those who led the society during the Nazi era and on the involvement of high-ranking members in medical crimes. The second part of the article analyzes developments in the postwar period and considers why it took so long to hold up a mirror to the past. Although critical voices could be heard from both outside and within the society, they remained isolated and without consequence. Only the past 2 decades have brought about both general and specific developments toward historical accountability and an active culture of remembrance. With a declaration first published in 2015, a new website bringing history and memory together, and a strong commitment to the norms and values of liberal democracy, the DGIM has found its way to a clear position-and has lessons to teach.

At the end of the 1960 s, the German Society for Internal Medicine faced a period of intensifying factional struggles. Traditional conservative views increasingly met with critics demanding reform efforts. These debates covered, among other things, the self-definition of the society, doctor-patient relationship, medical studies, hospital regulations, and the relationship between doctors and nursing staff. In 1972/73, these opposing opinions within the society became particularly obvious, when the former NS-Gaustudentenführer Gotthard Schettler, who felt strong resentments towards the members of the 1968 movement, was followed by the reform willing, politically left wing Herbert Begemann in the DGIM presidency. During his time in office, Begemann also focused on general political issues., Competing Interests: Die DGIM ist Drittmittelgeber eines von den Autoren durchgeführten Projekts zur Geschichte der DGIM., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Although times were difficult in 1947/48 - with war damage, travel restrictions and the East-West conflict - the German Society for Internal Medicine not only managed to re-organise itself but also hosted its first scientific congress in that year. The DGIM members Franz Volhard and Paul Martini, who rather disapproved of the Nazi regime, played a decisive role in this process. However, a critical discussion of the NS medical crimes, which occurred just a few years ago, remained the exception. It is interesting to note that members who were persecuted by the NS regime were nevertheless willing to attend a congress that obviously provided a forum for the protagonists of the Nazi era.This work presents - for the first time - an overview of the specific conditions of the reconstitution of the German Society for Internal Medicine and enriches our knowledge about the actions of the medical societies in the years between the fall of the Nazi regime and the founding of the two German states., Competing Interests: Die DGIM ist Drittmittelgeber eines von den Autoren durchgeführten Projekts zur Geschichte der DGIM., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

51 years after its founding in 1882, the "Congress for Internal Medicine", 1920 renamed "German Society for Internal Medicine (DGIM)", fell into heavy water. While during the Kaiserreich and the Weimar Republic the medical care for the individual patient had never been seriously questioned, the proclaimed "Third Reich" brought fundamental changes. The 1164 male and 13 female physicians, who had been organized in the DGIM 1933, had to position themselves in the Nazi dictatorship. The same applied for the society as a whole.The behavior of the German Society of Internal Medicine during the Nazi period is disenchanting. The society completely subordinated to the Nazi regime. The scientific program of the meetings was oriented to the ideological interests of the regime. Solidarity with nazi-persecuted people is only apparent in rare cases. On the contrary, even DGIM chairmen were involved in expulsions and NS-medical crimes. Cautious criticism was limited to a few areas, such as the "Neue Deutsche Heilkunde" ("New German Healing") and the study conditions at the universities. Only individual DGIM members developed oppositional behavior on the basis of personal conviction.In accordance with the more recent research on the Nazi era, these results both clarify and broaden the picture of scientific organizations in general and medical societies in particular., Competing Interests: Interessenkonflikt: Die Autoren geben an, DGIM Drittmittelgeber zu sein., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

The long established German Society for Internal Medicine (DGIM) profoundly incriminated itself through its actions and positions during the National Socialist era. The German clinical physician Paul Martini assumed the part of reorganizing the DGIM prior to its first post-war convention in 1948 in Karlsruhe. Martini, who himself had opposed the Nazi regime, adopted a course of comprehensive integration. He strived to incorporate both physicians who had been persecuted by the Nazi Regime as well as former moderate National Socialists into the DGIM. At the same time he campaigned to preserve the pan-German nature of the conferences and aimed rapidly to make the DGIM re-compatible with international research. However, this path led to an allegedly apolitical focus on science and decades of largely failing to confront its Nazi past.