LEADER 05778nam 2200733 450 001 9910465060003321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a90-272-6984-X 035 $a(CKB)3710000000168313 035 $a(EBL)1730199 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001261458 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12486728 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001261458 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11320442 035 $a(PQKB)10372610 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1730199 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1730199 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10891865 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL625520 035 $a(OCoLC)883374031 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000168313 100 $a20140722h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aArgumentation and health /$fedited by Sara Rubinelli, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research ; A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, University of Amsterdam 210 1$aAmsterdam, Netherlands ;$aPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (153 p.) 225 1 $aBenjamins Current Topics ;$vVolume 64 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-4252-6 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and indexes. 327 $aArgumentation 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 327 $a2. 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 327 $aReasonableness 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 327 $a2. 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 327 $a3. 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 327 $a5. Choosing pragmatic argumentation to address criticism 330 $aThis chapter is concerned with the reasons why sometimes good arguments in health communication leaflets fail to convince the targeted audience. As an illustrative example it uses the age-dependent eligibility of women in the Netherlands to receive routine breast cancer screening examinations: according to Dutch regulations women under 50 are ineligible for them. The present qualitative study rests on and complements three experimental studies on the persuasiveness of mammography information leaflets; it uses interviews to elucidate reasons why the arguments in the health communication leaflet 410 0$aBenjamins current topics ;$vVolume 64. 606 $aCommunication in medicine 606 $aMedical personnel 606 $aCommunication in human services 606 $aInterprofessional relations 606 $aDebates and debating 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aCommunication in medicine. 615 0$aMedical personnel. 615 0$aCommunication in human services. 615 0$aInterprofessional relations. 615 0$aDebates and debating. 676 $a610.1/4 702 $aRubinelli$b Sara 702 $aSnoeck Henkemans$b Arnolda Francisca 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910465060003321 996 $aArgumentation and health$92170410 997 $aUNINA