Coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in patient-physician relationships: II.Traditio argumentum respectus [Book Review]

Journal of Medical Humanities 13 (3):147-156 (1992)

A methodology of argumentation and a perspective of incredulity are essential ingredients of all intellectual endeavor, including that associated with the art and science of medical care.Traditio argumentum respectus (tradition of respectful argumentation) as a principled system of assessing the validity of beliefs, opinions, perceptions, data, and knowledge, is worthy of practice and perpetuation, because assessments of validity are susceptible to incompleteness, incorrectness, and misinterpretation. Since the latter may lead to ambiguity, uncertainty, anxiety, and animosity among the individuals (patients and physicians) involved in such dialogue, objective analyses and criteria are desirable. A tradition of respectful argumentation is a means to this end—to maximize objectivity and minimize subjectivity as part of decision-making processes and to preserve the integrity of the participants in a patient-physician relationship. During such discourse one must always be cognizant of fallacious arguments—material, verbal, and formal fallacies—since they compromise the validity of assertions. This essay summarizes a classification of fallacious arguments, by definition and by example, predicated upon the intellectual tradition of Occidental Society; and advocates a tradition of respectful argumentation to nullify them
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01127373
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,883
External links

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

Plato's Method of Dialectic.Julius Stenzel - 1940 - New York: Arno Press.
Valid Thinking.Philip Ellis Wheelwright - 1962 - New York: Odyssey Press.
The Fallacies, a view of logic from the practical side.Alfred Sidgwick - 1884 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 18:107-116.
A Bentham Reader.Jeremy Bentham & Mary Peter Mack - 1969 - New York: Pegasus.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Informed Consent: Patient's Right or Patient's Duty?Richard T. Hull - 1985 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (2):183-198.
Physician and Patient: Respect for Mutuality.David Gary Smith & Lisa H. Newton - 1984 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 5 (1).
The Noncompliant Patient: A Kantian and Levinasian Response.P. Burcher - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):74-89.
What Does a `Right' to Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) Legally Entail?M. T. Harvey - 2002 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 23 (4-5):271-286.
Does Physician Assisted Suicide Violate the Integrity of Medicine?Richard Momeyer - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):13-24.


Added to PP index

Total views
6 ( #948,900 of 2,266,264 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #850,735 of 2,266,264 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature