Erratum: Arguing ‘for’ the Patient: Informed Consent and Strategic Maneuvering in Doctor–Patient Interaction

Peter J. Schulz, Sara Rubinelli

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

As a way to advance integration between traditional readings of the medical encounter and argumentation theory, this article conceptualizes the doctor–patient interaction as a form of info-suasive dialogue. Firstly, the article explores the relevance of argumentation in the medical encounter in connection with the process of informed consent. Secondly, it discloses the risks inherent to a lack of reconciliation of the dialectical and rhetorical components in the delivery of the doctor’s advice, as especially resulting from the less-than-ideal conditions of the internal states of the doctor and the patient, and the lack of symmetry in their status.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)481-491
Number of pages11
JournalArgumentation
Volume29
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Nov 2015

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Keywords

  • Info-suasive dialogue
  • Informed consent
  • Medical encounter
  • Pragma-dialectical rules of critical discussion
  • Strategic maneuvering

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Erratum: Arguing ‘for’ the Patient: Informed Consent and Strategic Maneuvering in Doctor–Patient Interaction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this