Argumentation between Doctors and Patients
Understanding clinical argumentative discourse
| ILIAS & Leiden University & University of Amsterdam
| ILIAS & University of Amsterdam
| ILIAS & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Argumentation between Doctors and Patients discusses the use of argumentation in clinical settings. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, it aims at providing an understanding of argumentative discourse in the context of doctor-patient interaction. It explains when and how interactions between doctors and patients can be reconstructed as argumentative, what it means for doctors and patients to reasonably resolve a difference of opinion, what it implies to strive simultaneously for reasonableness and effectiveness in clinical discourse, and when such efforts derail into fallaciousness. Argumentation between Doctors and Patients is of interest to all those who seek to improve their understanding of argumentation in a medical context – whether they are students, scholars of argumentation, or medical practitioners.
Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Nanon Labrie are prominent argumentation theorists. In writing Argumentation between Doctors and Patients, they have benefited from the advice of an Advisory Board consisting of both medical practitioners and argumentation scholars.
[Not in series, 235] 2021. x, 155 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
Table of Contents
|
Preface
|
ix–x
|
|
1–12
|
|
|
13–36
|
|
|
37–55
|
|
|
57–79
|
|
|
81–106
|
|
|
107–130
|
|
|
Epilogue
|
131–133
|
|
Terminology
|
135–138
|
|
Overview of rules and fallacies
|
139–143
|
|
Members Advisory Board
|
145–147
|
|
About the authors
|
149–150
|
|
References
|
151–152
|
|
Index
|
153
|
“
Argumentation between Doctors and Patients comes at a timely moment in the Covid-19 pandemic. As a resource for increasing clarity in doctor-patient communication, the book fulfills a useful role especially pertinent to the moment. It is remarkably accessible to newcomers to argumentation theory, and correspondingly a heavy emphasis is placed on introducing fundamentals. The connection between theory of argument and the medical field comes out mainly in the examples of technical terms supplied within the chapters”
Pamela Sugrue, University of Chicago, on Linguist List 32.3582 (11 November 2021)
References
References
Street Jr., R. L., Makoul, G., Arora, N. K., & Epstein, R. M.
(2009) How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Education and Counseling, 74, 295–301. 
De Haes, H., & Bensing, J.
(2009) Endpoints in medical communication research, proposing a framework of functions and outcomes. Patient education and counseling, 74(3), 287–294.
Labrie, N.
(2012) Strategic maneuvering in treatment decision-making discussions:
two cases in point. Argumentation, 26(2), 171–199.
(2013) Strategically eliciting concessions from patients in treatment
decision-making discussions. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(3), 322–341.
Labrie, N., & Schulz, P. J.
(2014) Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the
role of argumentation in doctor–patient communication. Health Communication, 29(10), 996–1008.
Labrie, N. H., & Schulz, P. J.
(2015a) Exploring the relationships between participatory
decision-making, visit duration, and general practitioners’ provision of
argumentation to support their medical advice: results from a content
analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 98(5), 572–577.
Labrie, N., & Schulz, P. J.
(2015b) Quantifying doctors’ argumentation in general practice
consultation through content analysis: Measurement development and
preliminary results. Argumentation, 29(1), 33–55.
Labrie, N. H., & Schulz, P. J.
(2015c) The effects of general practitioners’ use of argumentation to
support their treatment advice: Results of an experimental study using
video-vignettes. Health Communication, 30(10), 951–961.
Pilgram, R.
(2015) A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical
study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation. Doctoral dissertation: University of Amsterdam.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Mohammed, D.
(2012) Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared
medical decision-making. Journal of Argumentation in context, 1(1), 19–32.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H.
(2012) The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in
medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared
decision making. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between scientists and citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa
State University (June 1–2 2012) Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Subjects & Metadata
Communication Studies
Philosophy
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN004000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Communication Studies