Chapter 1. Argumentation between doctors and patients
-
Frans H. van Eemeren
Abstract
Verbal interaction between doctors and patients is inherent to the medical profession. When the communicative interaction between doctors and patients is aimed at exchanging different viewpoints through discussion in order to reach a (treatment) decision, it can be said that the dialogue that emerges is argumentative in nature. It is important to note here that the term ‘argumentation’ bears no negative connotation. Rather it refers to a resolution-oriented process that is aimed at justifying or refuting a standpoint – an opinion, judgment, preference, or recommendation at issue in the discourse. Medical consultation can be referred to as an argumentative activity type. This means that the argumentative discourse between doctors and patients is influenced by the rules, standards, and conventions that apply to medical consultation. Argumentative processes between doctors and patients can be understood through careful study of their discourse. In doing so, a theoretical approach is required that makes clear how the argumentative discourse concerned is to be analyzed and evaluated. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, which forms the theoretical framework of this volume, can be used to describe the use of argumentation in clinical settings as well as to evaluate the uses of argumentation in doctor-patient communication. This is particularly useful for anyone who seeks to both understand and improve the use of argumentation in practice.
Abstract
Verbal interaction between doctors and patients is inherent to the medical profession. When the communicative interaction between doctors and patients is aimed at exchanging different viewpoints through discussion in order to reach a (treatment) decision, it can be said that the dialogue that emerges is argumentative in nature. It is important to note here that the term ‘argumentation’ bears no negative connotation. Rather it refers to a resolution-oriented process that is aimed at justifying or refuting a standpoint – an opinion, judgment, preference, or recommendation at issue in the discourse. Medical consultation can be referred to as an argumentative activity type. This means that the argumentative discourse between doctors and patients is influenced by the rules, standards, and conventions that apply to medical consultation. Argumentative processes between doctors and patients can be understood through careful study of their discourse. In doing so, a theoretical approach is required that makes clear how the argumentative discourse concerned is to be analyzed and evaluated. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, which forms the theoretical framework of this volume, can be used to describe the use of argumentation in clinical settings as well as to evaluate the uses of argumentation in doctor-patient communication. This is particularly useful for anyone who seeks to both understand and improve the use of argumentation in practice.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
- Chapter 1. Argumentation between doctors and patients 1
- Chapter 2. Argumentation and resolving differences of opinion 13
- Chapter 3. The argumentation structure 37
- Chapter 4. Assessing the soundness of argumentation 57
- Chapter 5. Fallacies in medical consultations 81
- Chapter 6. Strategic maneuvering in medical consultations 107
- Epilogue 131
- Terminology 135
- Overview of rules and fallacies 139
- Members Advisory Board 145
- About the authors 149
- References 151
- Index 153
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
- Chapter 1. Argumentation between doctors and patients 1
- Chapter 2. Argumentation and resolving differences of opinion 13
- Chapter 3. The argumentation structure 37
- Chapter 4. Assessing the soundness of argumentation 57
- Chapter 5. Fallacies in medical consultations 81
- Chapter 6. Strategic maneuvering in medical consultations 107
- Epilogue 131
- Terminology 135
- Overview of rules and fallacies 139
- Members Advisory Board 145
- About the authors 149
- References 151
- Index 153
