It is about our body, our own body!”: On the difficulty of telling dutch women under 50 that mammography is not for them
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):130-142 (2012)
This article 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 leaflets for the exclusion of women under 50 from routine mammographic screenings do not work.
|Keywords||argumentation health information and communication breast cancer screening|
|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
Maya J. Goldenberg (2010). Working for the Cure: Challenging Pink Ribbon Activism [Book Chapter]. In Roma Harris, Nadine Wathen & Sally Wyatt (eds.), [Book] Configuring Health Consumers: Health Work and the Imperative of Personal Responsibility. Eds. R. Harris, N. Wathen, S. Wyatt. Amsterdam: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Palgrave Macmillan
Megan Eide & Ann Milliken Pederson (2009). God, Disease, and Spiritual Dilemmas: Reading the Lives of Women with Breast Cancer. Zygon 44 (1):85-96.
Cynthia Ryan (2004). “Am I Not a Woman?” The Rhetoric of Breast Cancer Stories in African American Women's Popular Periodicals. Journal of Medical Humanities 25 (2):129-150.
L. Rosenblatt (2006). Being the Monster: Women's Narratives of Body and Self After Treatment for Breast Cancer. Medical Humanities 32 (1):53-56.
Marit Solbjør (2008). You Have to Have Trust in Those Pictures": A Perspective on Women's Experiences of Mammography Screening. In Julie Brownlie, Alexandra Greene & Alexandra Howson (eds.), Researching Trust and Health. Routledge 54.
Chris la Barbera & Melissa Meade (2010). Women, Wellness, and the Media. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 3 (1):158-164.
Ozum Ucok (2005). The Meaning of Appearance in Surviving Breast Cancer. Human Studies 28 (3):291 - 316.
Don Marquis (1989). An Ethical Problem Concerning Recent Therapeutic Research on Breast Cancer. Hypatia 4 (2):140 - 155.
Matt Williams & Jon Williamson (2006). Combining Argumentation and Bayesian Nets for Breast Cancer Prognosis. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (1-2):155-178.
Leslie E. Blumenson (1987). How Would a Latent Period for Early Breast Cancer Affect the Benefit of Screening? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (2):169-182.
Lisa S. Parker (1995). Breast Cancer Genetic Screening and Critical Bioethics' Gaze. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (3):313-337.
Jon Williamson (2006). Combining Argumentation and Bayesian Nets for Breast Cancer Prognosis. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (1-2):155-178.
Jenny Slatman (2012). Phenomenology of Bodily Integrity in Disfiguring Breast Cancer. Hypatia 27 (2):281-300.
Myriam Skrutkowska & Charles Weijer, Do Patients with Breast Cancer Participating in Clinical Trials Receive Better Nursing Care?
Victoria Seavilleklein (2009). Challenging the Rhetoric of Choice in Prenatal Screening. Bioethics 23 (1):68-77.
Added to index2012-06-06
Total downloads52 ( #66,048 of 1,728,009 )
Recent downloads (6 months)48 ( #23,642 of 1,728,009 )
How can I increase my downloads?