05778nam 2200733 450 991046506000332120200520144314.090-272-6984-X(CKB)3710000000168313(EBL)1730199(SSID)ssj0001261458(PQKBManifestationID)12486728(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001261458(PQKBWorkID)11320442(PQKB)10372610(MiAaPQ)EBC1730199(Au-PeEL)EBL1730199(CaPaEBR)ebr10891865(CaONFJC)MIL625520(OCoLC)883374031(EXLCZ)99371000000016831320140722h20142014 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrArgumentation and health /edited by Sara Rubinelli, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research ; A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, University of AmsterdamAmsterdam, Netherlands ;Philadelphia, Pennsylvania :John Benjamins Publishing Company,2014.©20141 online resource (153 p.)Benjamins Current Topics ;Volume 64Description based upon print version of record.90-272-4252-6 Includes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and indexes.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 making2. 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; ReferencesReasonableness 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 Italy2. 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 discourse3. 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 argumentation5. Choosing pragmatic argumentation to address criticismThis 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 leafletBenjamins current topics ;Volume 64.Communication in medicineMedical personnelCommunication in human servicesInterprofessional relationsDebates and debatingElectronic books.Communication in medicine.Medical personnel.Communication in human services.Interprofessional relations.Debates and debating.610.1/4Rubinelli SaraSnoeck Henkemans Arnolda FranciscaMiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910465060003321Argumentation and health2170410UNINA