[vtbassmatt]

As the parent of a child with Down syndrome, I really appreciate the way you and the parent comment approached this topic. Thank you.

Tiny nit, in the US it’s “Down syndrome”, not “Down’s”. Apparently we name conditions with a possessive if named for someone with it (“Lou Gehrig’s”) and without the possessive if named for, say, the person who first described the condition in a medical journal.

[suslik]

I don’t think this is true. Two counterexamples: Huntington didn’t have Huntington’s; Wilson didn’t have Wilson’s.

[vtbassmatt]

I had to look both of those up, and you’re right. The rule is inconsistently applied for sure. This got me curious about where the so-called rule came from. Wikipedia says:

> Auto-eponyms may use either the possessive or non-possessive form, with the preference to use the non-possessive form for a disease named for a physician or health care professional who first described it and the possessive form in cases of a disease named for a patient (commonly, but not always, the first patient) in whom the particular disease was identified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymous_diseases#Aut...

This is sourced by a link to the American Association of Medical Transcriptionists, which is not a body I’d heard of but I guess have some skin in the game when it comes to the intersection of medicine and grammar. https://www.mtstars.com/word-For-eponyms-AAMT-advocates-drop...

[ksenzee]

I never knew why the possessive wasn't used, thank you!

[twixfel]

In the UK for example we don’t go for this performative anti-apostropheism that Americans are so fond of. So it really depends on where you’re from.

[vtbassmatt]

“Performative” feels a bit judgmental, given that America/UK differences in orthography are common. But yeah, y’all spell it differently than we do. I think you might also capitalize the “s” in syndrome?

[shadowgovt]

Thank you! I will keep that in mind.