Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children in the United States, March 2020 to February 2021.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) varies by race and ethnicity. This study assessed whether disparities in MIS-C in the United States by race and ethnicity exceed known disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence. METHODS: We compared the distribution of race and ethnicity among patients with MIS-C (<21 years of age, termed children) with onset March 2020 to February 2021 to that of children with COVID-19 and in the general population. Analysis was restricted to 369 counties with high completeness of race and ethnicity reporting for MIS-C and COVID-19. For each racial and ethnic group, observed numbers of patients with MIS-C were compared with expected numbers (observed/expected ratio) in children with COVID-19 and in the general population within these counties. RESULTS: Compared with children in the general population, MIS-C was more frequent among Hispanic (139% of expected) and non-Hispanic Black children (183%) and less frequent among non-Hispanic White (64%) and non-Hispanic Asian children (48%). Compared with children with COVID-19, MIS-C was more frequent in non-Hispanic Black children (207% of expected) and less frequent in non-Hispanic White children (68%); however, frequency was not different among Hispanic (102%) and non-Hispanic Asian (74%) children. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in MIS-C by race and ethnicity exist, even after controlling for COVID-19 disparities and geographic variations. The high proportion of MIS-C among Hispanic children and low proportion among non-Hispanic Asian children align with COVID-19 rates, while the high proportion among non-Hispanic Black children and low proportion among non-Hispanic White children are not explainable by COVID-19 rates.

[The prohibition of lithotomy within the Hippocratic Oath: historical and ethical considerations on the history of surgery]. / Das Steinschnittverbot im hippokratischen Eid: medizinhistorische und ethische Betrachtungen zur Geschichte der Chirurgie.

A passage with one of the most contradictory interpretations of the so-called Hippocratic Oath, which was presumably created between 500 and 300 before Christ, is the prohibition of lithotomy. The oldest handwritten traditions of the Hippocratic Oath are dating back to the 11th-12th century. However the section of the prohibition of lithotomy is missing in the oldest preserved tradition (Codex Urbinas gr. 64), which led to some authors interpretation of being added later on. Beyond all doubt the analysis of the texture of the Hippocratic Oath leads to the conclusion that the prohibition of bladder stone lithotomy must have been an integrative part of the oath from the very first beginning. The author could have been inspired by the following reasons to have a non oath related doctor let done the medical operation: the removal of a bladder stone by an operation, which was outfitted with many complications, was one of the most difficult surgical interventions in the antique. Celsus (1st century A. D.) mentioned "severe fever, urine fistula and deadly inflammations" after lithotomy. Since the operation was done perineally, presumably a negative sexual potency was feared. No doctor engaged to help and not to harm his patients was allowed to make this kind of operation, which was often followed by many complications. Nevertheless sometimes patients were "tantalised to death by suffering dreadful pain" through those bladder stone diseases. Consequently "practising men" (the term "surgeon" was created at a later date), those who had been specialised in that operation and had not been linked to the oath, were allowed to make this kind of dangerous operation. Due to a greater experience of those specialists (named as "Lithotomos" by Celsus ih the 1st century A. D.) the danger of this kind of operation was reduced. The prohibition of lithotomy could be interpreted as a commitment to realize the limits of ones own medical actions.

[History and definition of sepsis--do we need new terminology?]. / Geschichte und Definition der Sepsis--Brauchen wir eine neue Terminologie?

The history of sepsis demonstrates that despite current knowledge about its pathogenesis the definition of sepsis is more contested than ever. However, a definite terminology is necessary to define the entrance criteria for future clinical studies concerning patients with sepsis or septic shock. For this purpose, in 1991 a consensus conference was held in the US, but its recommendations have not found unequivocal acceptance. These recommendations and their historical background are presented and their consequences discussed.