Argumentation and health / / edited by Sara Rubinelli, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research ; A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, University of Amsterdam

• Record Nr.: UNINA9910786610603321
• Pubbl/distr/stampa: Amsterdam, Netherlands ; ; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania : , : John Benjamins Publishing Company, , 2014; ©2014
• ISBN: 90-272-6984-X
• Descrizione fisica: 1 online resource (153 p.)
• Collana: Benjamins Current Topics ; ; Volume 64
• Disciplina: 610.1/4
• Soggetti: Communication in medicine; Medical personnel; Communication in human services; Interprofessional relations; Debates and debating
• Lingua di pubblicazione: Inglese
• Formato: Materiale a stampa
• Livello bibliografico: Monografia
• Note generali: Description based upon print version of record.
• Nota di bibliografia: Includes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and indexes.
• Nota di contenuto: Argumentation and Health; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Argumentation in the healthcare domain; Argumentation and informed consent in the doctor-patient relationship; Introduction; Reibl v. Hughes; The law and bioethics of informed consent; The asymmetry of the doctor-patient relationship; Preserving the balance of SDM in the informed consent interaction; The circularity of 'competent to consent'; References; Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making; 1. Shared decision making; 2. Comparison of the ideal of shared decision making with the concept of critical discussion3. Strategic maneuvering in the physician's presentation of treatments; 3.1 Presenting the recommendation in such a way that the patient seems to participate in the decision making process about the best treatment; 3.2 Presenting the available treatment options in such a way that the treatment preferred by the doctor seems to be the most reasonable option; 3.3 Presenting the ; recommendation in such a way that it looks as if the decision is completely up to the patient; 4. Conclusion; References; Reasonableness of a doctor's argument by authority1. Introduction; 2. Argumentation in medical consultation; 3. Authority argumentation; 4. Soundness of a doctor's argument by authority; General soundness conditions; Specific soundness conditions; 5. Conclusion; References; Evaluating argumentative moves in medical consultations; 1. The social context of the medical consultation in Italy; 1.1 The Rigotti and Rocci model for the description of the communication context; 1.2 The institutionalized dimension of the medical consultation in Italy; 2. Evaluating argumentation in medical consultationsExtract #1; Extract #2; Extract #3; 3. Concluding remarks; References; Teaching argumentation theory to doctors; 1. Introduction; 2. The 2012 medical consultation; 2.1 Patient-centeredness as a philosophy; 2.2 Shared decision-making as a model; 2.3 Informed consent as a process; 3. What does not work, what works, what is needed; 4. Conclusion; References; Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs as an argumentative activity type; 1. Introduction; 2. Intrinsic and extrinsic constraints on argumentative discourse; 3. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements4. DTCA as an argumentative activity type; 5. Example: Nexium advertisement; 6. Conclusion; References; The strategic function of variants of pragmatic argumentation in health brochures; 1. Introduction; 2. A pragma-dialectical approach to pragmatic argumentation; 3. Dialectical options in the argumentation stage; 4. Choosing pragmatic argumentation to address doubt towards the standpoint; 4.1 Dialectical relevance of choosing pragmatic argumentation; 4.2 Rhetorical advantage of choosing pragmatic argumentation; 5. Choosing pragmatic argumentation to address criticism
• Sommario/riassunto: This chapter is concerned with the reasons why sometimes good arguments in health communication leaflets fail to convince the targeted audience. As an illustrative example it uses the age-dependent eligibility of women in the Netherlands to receive routine breast cancer screening examinations: according to Dutch regulations women under 50 are ineligible for them. The present qualitative study rests on and complements three experimental studies on the persuasiveness of mammography information leaflets; it uses interviews to elucidate reasons why the arguments in the health communication leaflet