Search

Rudolf Virchow's teaching was challenged by German physicians in the 1920s. Scientific medicine, they argued, did not provide sufficient tools for patient care. They held Virchow responsible for this state of things. According to Ludolf von Krehl, Gustav von Bergmann or Ferdinand Sauerbruch, Virchow fostered a mechanistic trend in medicine which neglected the human dimension in medical practice. These clinicians claimed that scientific medicine should therefore be complemented at the bedside by a teleological approach, taking into account the purposiveness of vital processes. This was the methodological core of the reform that they intended to promote. Many pathologists alike were preoccupied with the reformatory trend launched by the physicians. Ludwig Aschoff, Paul Ernst, Max Borst and Walter Pagel endeavoured to reform the theoretical foundations of their discipline. However, they did not agree with the physicians' view of Virchow's teaching. Aschoff especially showed that Virchow's initial writings provided in fact an epistemological basis supporting the clinicians' endeavour. In this paper, I examine Aschoff's argumentation. I hope thereby to improve our knowledge of one of the components of the medical reform which took place in Germany during the Weimar period.