Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 2:3 (2013) ► pp.322–341
Strategically eliciting concessions from patients in treatment decision-making discussions
Published online: 16 January 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.3.03lab
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.3.03lab
In this paper it is examined how doctors may strategically elicit concessions from their patients in order to create a favorable point of departure for the treatment decision-making discussion. Using the dialectical profile for establishing starting points in an argumentative discussion (van Eemeren, Houtlosser, and Snoeck Henkemans 2007) as an analytic tool, an overview is provided of the different — analytically relevant — dialectical moves that doctors may make at the opening stage of the discussion and the possible subsequent dialectical pathways. Based on examples taken from actual consultation practice, each of these pathways is illustrated. Moreover, some of the strategic maneuvers doctors may deploy to start the critical resolution process in the most favorable way are identified, linking these maneuvers to the aims that are inherently embedded in the broader institutional context in which the discussion takes place.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen & Nanon Labrie
Bigi, Sarah
2018. The role of argumentative strategies in the construction of emergent common ground in a patient-centered approach to
the medical encounter. Journal of Argumentation in Context 7:2 ► pp. 141 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H.
Labrie, Nanon & Peter J. Schulz
Labrie, Nanon H. M. & Peter J. Schulz
Labrie, Nanon H.M. & Peter J. Schulz
Labrie, Nanon H.M.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. 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.
