Argumentation between Doctors and Patients

Understanding clinical argumentative discourse

| ILIAS & Leiden University & University of Amsterdam
| ILIAS & University of Amsterdam
| ILIAS & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
ISBN 9789027208484 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
ISBN 9789027208477 | EUR 33.00 | USD 49.95
ISBN 9789027260109 | EUR 90.00/33.00*
| USD 135.00/49.95*
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
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Argumentation between doctors and patients
Chapter 2. Argumentation and resolving differences of opinion
Chapter 3. The argumentation structure
Chapter 4. Assessing the soundness of argumentation
Chapter 5. Fallacies in medical consultations
Chapter 6. Strategic maneuvering in medical consultations
Overview of rules and fallacies
Members Advisory Board
About the authors
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”


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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labrie, N.
(2012) Strategic maneuvering in treatment decision-making discussions: two cases in point. Argumentation, 26(2), 171–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Strategically eliciting concessions from patients in treatment decision-making discussions. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(3), 322–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects & Metadata

Communication Studies

Communication Studies


BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN004000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Communication Studies
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020050319 | Marc record