[The fighting for history of medicine]

The article considers issues of actual discussion about "death of history of medicine". For a long time, history of medicine was set out the task to substantiate triumph of one national model and tradition over another one and "to place the past at the service of the future". For example, Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, believes that historians of medicine in no way respond to such problems of today as commercialization of medicine, drug abuse, paralysis in public health, catastrophic failures in patient care. He assumes this fact being true sign of that the history of medicine "is creeping towards scientific cemetery". Another reason for appearance of "obituaries" of history of medicine is the regular fact that classical courses almost exclusively consisted of narratives about great physicians and progress of medical science and practice. Moreover, the "medical" history of medicine if is not killed then is severely wounded by arrows flying from all sides - accusations in mistakes, indications on blind spots, myths and deliberate distortion of facts. The analysis of above-listed problems the proposals were developed concerning possible ways of revising academic course according modern requirements: training in the field of critical thinking, communication skills, oral speech and written language, academic writing. These tasks can be achieved by involving materials from museums of history of medicine, museums of universities and medical institutions, by collaboration with historical sources, databases of scientific publications and by engaging invited lecturers of various specialties working with historical and medical topics within the framework of other methodologies.