Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 423–432 | Cite as

Arguing ‘for’ the Patient: Informed Consent and Strategic Maneuvering in Doctor–Patient Interaction

  • Peter J. SchulzEmail author
  • Sara Rubinelli
Article

Abstract

As a way to advance integration between traditional readings of the medical encounter and argumentation theory, this article conceptualizes the doctor–patient interaction as a form of info-suasive dialogue. Firstly, the article explores the relevance of argumentation in the medical encounter in connection with the process of informed consent. Secondly, it discloses the risks inherent to a lack of reconciliation of the dialectical and rhetorical components in the delivery of the doctor’s advice, as especially resulting from the less than ideal conditions of the internal states of the doctor and the patient, and the lack of symmetry in their status.

Keywords

Medical encounter Info-suasive dialogue Informed consent Strategic maneuvering Pragma-dialectical rules of critical discussion 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank Bart Garssen for his acute remarks on the earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Atkinson, J., and J. Heritage. 1984. Structure of social action. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brashers, D.H. 1999. The patient self-advocacy scale (PSAS): Measuring involvement in health care decision making. Health Communication 11: 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brashers, D.H. 2002. Satisfying the argumentative requirements of self advocacy. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, 291–308. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brashers, D.H., S. Haas, R. Klingle, and J Neidig. 2000. Collective AIDS activism and individual’s perceived self-advocacy in physician–patient communication. Human Communication Research 26: 372–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brashers, D.H., L.S. Rintamaki, E. Hsieh, and J. Peterson. 2006. Pragma-dialectics and self-advocacy in physician-patient interactions. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 23–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. de Rosis, F., F. Grasso, C. Castelfranchi, and I. Poggi. 2000. Modelling conflict-resolution dialogues. In Computational conflicts, ed. H. Müller and R. Dieng, 41–62. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Dickinson, H. 1998. Evidence-based decision-making: An argumentative approach. International Journal of Medical Informatics 51: 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doyal, L.T., ed. 2000. Informed consent in medical research. London: BMJ Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Duggan, A. 2006. Understanding interpersonal communication processes across health contexts: Advances in the last decade and challenges for the next decade. Journal of Health Communication 11: 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feteris, E. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Fox, J., D. Glasspool, and J. Bury. 2001. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to reasoning under uncertainty in medical decision making. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine in Europe (AIME), ed. S. Quaglini, P. Barahona, and S. Andreasson, 272–282. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Goodnight, G.T. 2006. When reasons matter most: pragma-dialectics and the problem of informed consent. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 75–85. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Grasso, A., A Cawsey, and R Jones. 2000. Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving. A case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53: 1077–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green, N. 2005. A Bayesian network coding scheme for annotating biomedical information presented to genetic counseling clients. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 38: 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heritage, J., and D. Maynard. 2006. Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jenicek, M., and D. Hitchcock. 2005. Logic and critical thinking in medicine. Chicago, IL: AMA Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ong, L., J. de Haes, A. Hoos, and F. Lammes. 1995. Doctor–patient communication: A review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine 40: 903–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quill, T., and H. Brody. 1996. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy. Finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Annals of Internal Medicine 125: 736–769.Google Scholar
  19. Roter, D.L., and R. Frankel. 1992. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue. Social Science and Medicine 34: 1097–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roter, D., and J. Hall. 1993. Doctors talking to patients/patients talking to doctors: Improving communication in medical visits. Westport, CT: Auburn House.Google Scholar
  21. Roter, D., J. Hall, and N. Katz. 1988. Patient–physician communication: A descriptive summary of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling 12: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubinelli, S., and P.J. Schulz. 2006. Let me tell you why! When argumentation in doctor–patient interaction makes a difference. Argumentation 20: 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarangi, S., and C. Roberts. 1999. Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Schulz, P.J. 2006. The communication of diagnostic information by doctors to patients in the consultation. In Bordering biomedicine, ed. V. Kalitzkus and P.L. Twohig, 103–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  25. Schulz, P.J., and S. Rubinelli. 2006. Healthy arguments for literacy in health. In Report of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI): Spring symposium on argumentation for consumer of healthcare, 86–95. Stanford: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stewart, M., J. Brown, J. Boon, L. Galajda, L. Meredith, and M. Sangster. 1999. Evidence on patient–doctor communication. Cancer Prevention and Control 3: 25–30.Google Scholar
  27. Street, R. 2001. Active patients as powerful communicators. In The new handbook of language and social psychology, ed. W. Robinson and H. Giles, 541–560. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse analysis. The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Thompson, T. 1994. Interpersonal communication and health care. In Handbook of interpersonal communication, ed. M. Knapp and G. Miller, 696–725. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Upshur, R., and E. Colak. 2003. Argumentation and evidence. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24: 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  34. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, F.H., and P Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1: 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walton, D.N. 1985. Physician–patient decision making. A study in medical ethics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Communication & HealthUniversity of Lugano (CH)LuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations