The case for classical haematology: the impact of a name and the future of a field

Abstract

The entirety of haematology not involving blood cancers is variably referred to as benign haematology, non-malignant haematology, and classical haematology. Existential challenges face this broad, diverse, and historically significant field, including a workforce shortage and serious perception issues among trainees. Although the problem has been best documented in the USA, there is evidence to suggest it is more widespread. In this Viewpoint, we argue that use of the terms benign and non-malignant to describe this field dismisses patient suffering, dampens trainee interest, and diminishes the field as a whole. We propose more uniform adoption of the term classical haematology by organisations, academic divisions, and clinical practices, as this term avoids the conscious and unconscious devaluation of the “benign” and “non-malignant” descriptors. Unlike the alternatives, the term classical haematology evokes the field's rich, centuries-long history of numerous scientific advances central to every aspect of medicine, including discoveries by women and people of colour, thereby fostering interest and recruitment among trainees and dignifying patients living with serious non-cancerous haematological diseases.