David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argument and Computation 1 (3):199-214 (2011)
Advances in genetic research have created the need to inform consumers. Yet, the communication of hereditary risk and of the options for how to deal with it is a difficult task. Due to the abstract nature of genetics, people tend to overestimate or underestimate their risk. This paper addresses the issue of how to communicate risk information on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer through an online application. The core of the paper illustrates the design of OPERA, a risk assessment instrument that applies the UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's guidelines on the basis of (i) the number of relatives on the same side of the family with the same cancer or cancers that are known to run together; (ii) the ages of these relatives at diagnosis and (iii) the closeness of the family relationship with the person who is doing the assessment. By relying on the argumentation theory, we explain how the communication strategy that OPERA implements is essentially based on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's deductive argumentation by association. By using as premises “facts” (propositions about reality that can be assumed without further justification) and “truths” (propositions that make connections about facts), OPERA delivers its claims with an ex auctoritate causal link aimed at transferring the audience's acceptance of the cause to the effect. Overall, the design of OPERA rests on its capacity to induce users' active processing of risk information through an appeal to their reasoning faculty. In the conclusion, we present some results from a pilot evaluation of users' acceptance of OPERA
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jonathan Kimmelman (2004). Valuing Risk: The Ethical Review of Clinical Trial Safety. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):369-393.
Paul B. Thompson (1999). The Ethics of Truth-Telling and the Problem of Risk. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):489-510.
Eli Feiring (2009). Reassessing Insurers' Access to Genetic Information: Genetic Privacy, Ignorance, and Injustice. Bioethics 23 (5):300-310.
Barbara Osimani (2010). Pharmaceutical Risk Communication: Sources of Uncertainty and Legal Tools of Uncertainty Management. Health Risk and Society 12 (5):453-69.
Janet Malek (2007). Understanding Risks and Benefits in Research on Reproductive Genetic Technologies. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.
Graeme Suthers (2008). Privacy and Property Issues for a Familial Cancer Service. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (1):33-37.
Catherine Dekeuwer & Simone Bateman (2013). Much More Than a Gene: Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Reproductive Choices and Family Life. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (2):231-244.
Lee Black & Kelly A. McClellan (2011). Familial Communication of Research Results: A Need to Know? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (4):605-613.
Added to index2010-08-16
Total downloads5 ( #510,064 of 1,907,059 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,221 of 1,907,059 )
How can I increase my downloads?