Cover not available

In:Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 237–266

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 13
Characteristics of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer

An observational content analysis

 | Amsterdam UMC, The Netherlands
 | ILIAS, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
 | Athena Institute, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
 | Amsterdam UMC, The Netherlands
 | Amsterdam UMC, The Netherlands
Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.13akk
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Types of argumentation in the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory
    • 2.2The process of weighing and balancing in SDM in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
    • 2.3Symptomatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
    • 2.4Pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
  • 3.Content analysis
    • 3.1Objectives of the content analysis
    • 3.2Methodology
      • 3.2.1Content analysis
      • 3.2.2Sample
      • 3.2.3Measures
      • 3.2.4Procedures
      • 3.2.5Study reliability
    • 3.3Results
      • 3.3.1Symptomatic argumentation and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
      • 3.3.2Authority argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
    • 3.4Discussion of results
    • 3.5Strengths and limitations of the content analysis
  • 4.Some considerations for doctors
    • 4.1Critical questions in response to symptomatic argumentation
    • 4.2Critical questions in response to pragmatic argumentation
  • 5.Conclusion
    • 5.1Suggestions for future research
  • Notes
  • References
References (33)
References
Akkermans, A., Henkemans, F. S., Labrie, N., Henselmans, I., & van Laarhoven, H. (2018). The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 181–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine, 44(5), 681–692. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2016). Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1), 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Speech acts in argumentative discourse: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragmadialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2005). Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands. Een pragma-dialectische studie. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2011). Argumentatie. Inleiding in het identificeren van meningsverschillen en het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., Edwards, A., & Barry, M. (2012). Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361–1367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engelhardt, E. G., Pieterse, A. H., Van der Hout, A., de Haes, H. J. C. J. M., Kroep, J. R., Quarles van Ufford-Mannesse, P., Portielje, J. E. A., Smets, E. M. A., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2016). Use of implicit persuasion in decision making about adjuvant cancer treatment: A potential barrier to shared decision making. European Journal of Cancer, 66, 55–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2002). A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16, 347–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht etc: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek (Doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: IFOTT.
van der Geest, I. M. (2015). Argumentatie voor een keuze. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van gemotiveerde keuzes in overheidsbesluiten over m.e.r.-plichtige projecten. Ablasserdam: Haveka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henselmans, I., van Laarhoven, H. W. M., Van der Vloodt, J., de Haes, H. C. J. M., & Smets, E. M. A. (2017). Shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: A qualitative observation of talk about patients’ preferences. Palliative Medicine, 31(7), 625–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huth, E. J. (1994). “In the balance”: Weighing the evidence. Annals of Internal Medicine, 120(10), 889. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karnieli-Miller, O., & Neufeld-Kroszynski, G. (2018). The potential of argumentation theoryin enhancing patient-centered care in breaking bad new encounters. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 120–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kunneman, M., Gärtner, F. R., Hargraves, I. G., & Montori, V. M. (2018). Commentary of Akkermans, Snoeck Henkemans, Labrie, Henselmans & van Laarhoven (2018). Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 204–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kunneman, M., Montori, V. M., Castaneda-Guarderas, A., & Hess, E. P. (2016). What is shared decision making? (and what it is not). Academic Emergency Medicine, 12, 1320–1324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labrie, N. H. M. (2012). Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point. Argumentation, 26, 171–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labrie, N. H. M., & Schulz, P. J. (2013). Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor-patient communication. Health Communication, 29(10), 996–1008. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Quantifying doctors’ argumentation in general practice consultation through content analysis: Measurement development and preliminary results. Argumentation, 29, 33–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pilgram, R. (2015). A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation (Doctoral dissertation). Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.
Prigerson, H. G., Bao, Y., Shah, M. A., Paulk, M. E., LeBlanc, T. W., Schneider, B. J., Garrido, M. M., Carrington Reid, M., Berlin, D. A., Adelson, K. B., Neugut, A. I., & Maciejewski, P. K. (2015). Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA Oncology, 1, 778–784. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schellens, P. J., & Verhoeven, G. (1988). Argument en tegenargument. Een inleiding in de analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Labrie, N. H. M., & Pilgram, R. (2018). Argumentation and patient centered care. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 117–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Mohammed, D. (2012). Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 19–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2012). The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making. In J. Goodwin (Eds.), Between scientists & citizens: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University (pp. 345–354). Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierda, R. M. (2015). Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements: An analytical and empirical study concerning the strategic anticipation of critical questions (Doctoral dissertation). Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Labrie, Nanon H.M., Anne A.M.W. van Kempen, Marleen Kunneman, Sylvia A. Obermann-Borst, Liesbeth M. van Vliet & Nicole R. van Veenendaal
2025. Effects of reasoned treatment decision-making on parent-related outcomes: Results from a video-vignette experiment in neonatal care. Patient Education and Counseling 133 ► pp. 108625 ff. DOI logo
Akkermans, Aranka, Sanne Prins, Amber S. Spijkers, Jean Wagemans, Nanon H. M. Labrie, Dick L. Willems, Marcus J. Schultz, Thomas G. V. Cherpanath, Job B. M. van Woensel, Marc van Heerde, Anton H. van Kaam, Moniek van de Loo, Anne Stiggelbout, Ellen M. A. Smets & Mirjam A. de Vos
2023. Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study. Intensive Care Medicine 49:4 ► pp. 421 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Bart Garssen
2019. A collection of studies of argumentation in practice. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue