1887
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Shared medical decision-making has been analyzed as a particular kind of argumentative discussion. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, different types of conditions and rules are formulated for the ideal of a reasonable argumentative discussion. In this paper, we shall first show how making use of the distinctions made in the pragma-dialectical theory between different types of conditions for reasonable discussion can help to give a more systematic account of the obstacles that need to be overcome for shared decision-making to be successful. Next, by referring to the rules for critical discussion, we shall provide a more detailed explanation than can be found in the literature on health communication of why certain types of conduct of the participants in the medical encounter can be analyzed as obstacles to the goal of shared decision-making.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18027.pil
2018-10-12
2019-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barry, Michael J. , and Susan Edgman-Levitan
    2012 “Shared Decision Making – the Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care.” New England Journal of Medicine366: 780–781. 10.1056/NEJMp1109283
    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1109283 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickenbach, Jerome
    2012 “Argumentation and Informed Consent.” Journal of Argumentation in Context1 (1):5–18. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.02bic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.02bic [Google Scholar]
  3. Charles, Cathy , Amiram Gafni , and Tim Whelan
    1997 “Shared Decision-Making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (Or It Takes at Least Two to Tango).” Social Science & Medicine44 (5):681–692. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(96)00221‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1999 “Decision-Making in the Physician-Patient Encounter: Revisiting the Shared Treatment Decision Making Model.” Social Science & Medicine49 (5):651–661. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(99)00145‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1984Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin / Dordrecht: De Gruyter / Floris. doi:  10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  6. Eemeren, Frans H. van , and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Elwyn, Glyn , Adrian Edwards , Paul Kinnersley , and Richard Grol
    2000 “Shared Decision Making and the Concept of Equipoise: The Competences of Involving Patients in Healthcare Choices.” British Journal of General Practice50: 892–897.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Engelhardt, Ellen , Arwen H. Pieterse , Anja van der Hout , Hanneke J. C. J. M. de Haes , Judith R. Kroep , Patricia Quarles van Ufford-Mannasse , Johanneke E. A. Portielje , Ellen M. A. Smets , and Anne M. Stiggelbout
    2016 “Use of Implicit Persuasion in Decision Making about Adjuvant Cancer Treatment: A Potential Barrier to Shared Decision Making.” European Journal of Cancer66: 55–66. 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodnight, Thomas G.
    2006 “When reasons matter most: Pragma-dialectics and the problem of informed consent.” In Peter Houtlosser , and M. Agnes van Rees (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the Occasion of his 60th birthday (pp.75–85). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Karnieli-Miller, Orit , and Zvi Eisikovits
    2009 “Physician as Partner or Salesman? Shared Decision-Making in Real-Time Encounters.” Social Science & Medicine69: 1–8. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.04.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.04.030 [Google Scholar]
  12. Labrie, Nanon H. M.
    2014 For the Sake of Argument: Considering the Role, Characteristics and Effects of Argumentation in General Practice Consultation. DissertationUniversità della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano.
  13. Landmark, Anne M. D. , Pål Gulbrandsen , and Jan Svennivig
    2015 “Whose Decision? Negotiating Epistemic and Deontic Rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics78: 54–69. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  14. McNutt, Robert A.
    2004 “Shared Medical Decision Making. Problems, Process, Progress.” Journal of the American Medical Association292 (20):2516–2518. 10.1001/jama.292.20.2516
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.20.2516 [Google Scholar]
  15. Murray, Bryan
    2012 “Informed Consent: What Must a Physician Disclose to a Patient?” American Medical Association Journal of Ethics14 (7):563–566.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Pilgram, Roosmaryn
    2015 A Doctor’s Argument by Authority: An Analytical and Empirical Study of Strategic Manoeuvring in Medical Consultation. University of Amsterdam: doctoral dissertation.
  17. Probst, Marc A. , Hemal K. Kanzaria , Elizabeth M. Schoenfeld , Michael D. Menchine , Meggie Breslin , Cheryl Walsh , Edward R. Melnick , and Erik P. Hess
    2017 “Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department: A Guiding Framework for Clinicians.” Annals of Emergency Medicine70 (5):688–695. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.063
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.063 [Google Scholar]
  18. Salzburg Statement on Shared Decision Making
  19. Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca , and Dima Mohammed
    2012 “Institutional Constraints on Strategic Maneuvering in Shared Medical Decision-Making.” The Journal of Argumentation in Context1 (1):19–32. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh [Google Scholar]
  20. Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca and Jean H. M. Wagemans
    2012 “The Reasonableness of Argumentation from Expert Opinion in Medical Discussions: Institutional Safeguards for the Quality of Shared Decision Making.” In J. Goodwin (ed.), Between Scientists & Citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa State University, June1–2 2012 (pp.345–354). Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Stiggelbout, Anne M. , Arwen H. Pieterse , and Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes
    2015 “Shared Decision Making: Concepts, Evidence, and Practice.” Patient Education and Counseling98: 1172–1179. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ziebland, Sue , Alison Chapple , and Julie Evans
    2014 “Barriers to Shared Decisions in the Most Serious Cancers: A Qualitative Study of Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Treated in the UK.” Health Expectations18: 3302–3312. 10.1111/hex.12319
    https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12319 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18027.pil
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error