Conflict and consultation: Strategic manoeuvring in response to an antibiotic request


In recent years, the model of shared decision-making has become increasingly promoted as the preferred standard in doctor-patient communication. As the model considers doctor and patient as coe-qual partners that negotiate their preferred treatment options in order to reach a shared decision, shared de-cision-making notably leaves room for the usage of argumentation in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example of argumentative conflict in consultation is the discussion that emerges between doctors and their patients concerning antibiotics as a method of treatment for what is presumed to be a viral infec-tion. In this paper, a case of such argumentative conflict is studied, using the extended pragma-dialectical theory to argumentation. It is examined how a patient and her physician manoeuvre strategically in order to maintain a balance between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, as well as an equilibri-um between patient participation and evidence-based medication, while arguing their case for and against antibiotics respectively.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,100

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Teaching argumentation theory to doctors: Why and what.Sara Rubinelli & Claudia Zanini - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):66-80.
Don’t say that!J. A. van Laar - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (4):495-510.
Informal medicine: ethical analysis.F. J. Leavitt - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (12):689-692.


Added to PP

9 (#1,256,605)

6 months
1 (#1,475,085)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Douglas Walton
Last affiliation: University of Windsor

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations