Abstract
This paper throws some light on the nature of argumentation, its use and advantages, within the setting of doctor–patient interaction. It claims that argumentation can be used by doctors to offer patients reasons that work as ontological conditions for enhancing the decision making process, as well as to preserve the institutional nature of their relationship with patients. In support of these claims, selected arguments from real-life interactions are presented in the second part of the paper, and analysed by means of a model of argumentation borrowed from classical rhetoric, and refined according to the modern orientation of the pragma-dialectic approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Applebaum P. S., Lidz C. W., Meisel A.: 1987, Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice New York, NY, Oxford University Press
Bachers, D. E., S. M. Haas and L. J. Neidig: 2002, ‚Satisfying the Argumentative Requirements for Self-advocacy’, in Van Eemeren, op. cit., pp. 291–308
Ballard-Reisch D. S.: 1990, A Model of Participative Decision Making for Physician–Patient Interaction Health Communication 2: 91–104
Beauchamp T. L.: 1994, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics 4th ed, New York, Oxford University Press
Bredart A., Bouleuc C., Dolbeault S.: 2005 Doctor–Patient Communication and Satisfaction with Care in Oncology Current Opinion in Oncology 17(4): 351–4
Caffi C.: 2002, La Mitigazione. Un approccio pragmatico alla comunicazione nei contesti terapeutici. Münster: Lit Verlag
Charles C., Whelan T., Gafni A.: 2004, What Do We Mean by Partnership in Making Decisions About Treatment? British Medical Journal 319(7212): 780–782
Chin J. J.: 2002, Doctor–Patient Relationship: From Medical Paternalism to Enhanced Autonomy Singapore Medical Journal 43(3): 152–155
Davis D. D.: 1997, Phronesis, Clinical Reasoning, and Pellegrino’s Philosophy of Medicine Theoretical Medicine 18(1–2): 173–195
Dickinson H. D.: 1998, Evidence-based Decision-making: An Argumentative Approach International Journal of Medical Informatics 51(2–3): 71–81
Doyal L. T. (ed.) : 2000, Informed Consent in Medical Research London, BMJ Publications
Eddy D. M.: 1990, Clinical Decision Making: From Theory to Practice. Anatomy of Decision The Journal of the American Medical Association 263(3): 441–443
Evidence-based Medicine Working Group: 1994, Evidence-based Medicine: A New Approach to Teaching the Practice of Medicine. Journal of Dental Education 58(8): 648–653
Faden R., Beauchamp T.: 1986, A History and Theory of Informed Consent New York: Oxford University Press
Frederikson L. G.: 1993, Development of an Integrative Model for Medical Consultation Health Communication 5: 225–237
Grasso A., Cawsey A., Jones R.: 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(6): 1077–1115
Henkemans, F. S.: 2001, ‚Argumentation, Explanation and Causality: An Exploration of Current Linguistic Approaches to Textual Relations’, in T. Sanders and W. Spooren (eds.), Text Representation. Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, pp. 231–247, John Benjamins Publishing Company
Laine C., Davidoff F.: 1996, Patient-centered Medicine. A Professional Evolution The Journal of the American Medical Association 275(2): 152–156
Lowe M., Kerridge I.: 1997, Informed Consent and Shared Decision Making Student British Medical Journal 5: 275–277
Maguire P., Pitceathly C.: 2002, Key Communication Skills and How to Acquire Them British Medical Journal 325(7366): 697–700
Pellegrino E. D.: 1979, Toward a Reconstruction of Medical Morality: The Primacy of the Act of Profession and the Fact of Illness Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 4(1): 32–56
Pellegrino E. D., Thomasma D. C.: 1981, A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice: Toward a Philosophy and Ethic of Healing Professions New York, Oxford University Press
Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1958, Traité de l’Argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique, Presses Universitaires de France
Quill T. E., Brody H.: 1996, Physician Recommendations and Patient. Autonomy Finding a Balance Between Physician Power and Patient Choice Annals of Internal Medicine 125(9): 736–769
Rigotti, E. and S. Greco: 2005: ‚Argomentazione nelle istituzioni’ ARGUMENTUM eLearning module, www.argumentum.ch
Sascks H., Schegloff E., Jefferson G.: 1974, A Simplex Systematic for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation Language 50(4): 696–735
Schulz, P.J.: 2003, ‚Effetti mediatici sull’interazione medico-paziente’, in S. Rubinelli and B. Crivelli (eds.), Televisione, stampa e internet tra medico e paziente, Tribuna Medica, 7–10 (Special Issue)
Schulz, P.J.: 2006, ‚The Communication of Diagnostic Information by Doctors to Patients in the Consultation’, in P. Twohig and V. Kalitzkus (eds.), Bordering Biomedicine, pp. 103–118
Schulz, P.J. and S. Rubinelli: 2006, ‚Healthy Arguments for Literacy in Health’, Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Spring Symposium on Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, Palo Alto, CA, March 2006, pp. 86–95
Tan NHSS: 2002, Deconstructing Paternalism – What Serves the Patient Best? Singapore Medical Journal 43(3): 148–151
Upshur R.E.G., Colak E.: 2003, Argumentation and Evidence Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24(4):283–299
Van Eemeren F., Grootendorst R.: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale and London
Van Eemeren F., Grootendorst R., Henkemans F. S.: 2002, Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah and London
Van Eemerenm F., Grotendorst R.: 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge
Walton D. N.: 1985, Physician–Patient Decision-making. A Study in Medical Ethics Greenwood Press, Connecticut and London
Wear S.: 1998, Informed Consent: Patient Autonomy and Clinician Beneficence Within Health Care Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rubinelli, S., Schulz, P. “Let Me Tell You Why!”. When Argumentation in Doctor–Patient Interaction Makes a Difference. Argumentation 20, 353–375 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9014-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9014-y