To the Editor: I read with interest the recent correspondence on “patient privacy and Latin”.1,2

The wheel continues to turn! In 1927, matriculation for the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney demanded passage in the subjects of science at the Intermediate Certificate examination (equivalent to the present Year 9) and Latin at the Leaving Certificate examination (equivalent to Year 11). The 1937 edition of Cunningham’s textbook of anatomy contains no less than a 29-page glossary of “General terms and parts of the human body” listed in four columns headed “British revised”, “Latin form of British revised”, “Basle Nomina Anatomica” and “Nomenklatur Kommission”, respectively (the last three columns representing alternative versions of the Latin terms).

A final thought — how much human anatomy is taught in the present-day curriculum?

To the Editor: The recent letters1-5 on the “lamentable decline in the use of both Latin and Greek terms in medical practice”4 activated a not-too-distant memory for me.

In the 1980s, the Department of Academic General Practice at the University of Western Australia was an orphan, struggling for resources and a toehold in the medical curriculum.

Having exhausted all avenues of progress, I managed to obtain an appointment with the Vice-Chancellor. His prior meeting that day had been with leaders of the Greek community, who trooped out of his office looking rather glum. They were unhappy that ongoing financial support would not be provided for the teaching of Modern Greek at the University.

That night, I had a dream. In it, the V-C returned home to his wife, who asked, “And how was your day, Bob?” “Oh, just like any other”, he replied. “Kamien from General Practice was in, complaining about the demise of classical Greek from the medical curriculum”.

The next day, I rang the V-C to tell him about the dream. He laughed. I have wondered, since, whether such unlikely events may have strengthened his resolve to provide the toehold that our Department so desperately needed.