Healthcare and Medicine Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 2.3 Daily Communication of an Argumentative Nature between
Clinicians in Natural Language in a Hospital Setting ( Continued )
Question
Statement
Component of the
Argument
Resident: How
sure are we that
this kind of
treatment and
care will work?
Attending: All our past experience in this
hospital, and several critically reviewed
studies and their systematic reviews of
outcomes in patients treated this way
make us sure, if not almost certain, that
this kind of care works and it should in
this patient .”
Backing: Body of
experience and
evidence which
supports the
warrant, and
Qualifier: A word
or phrase that
indicates the
strength conferred
by the warrant
and thus the
strength of
support for our
conclusion.
Resident: “Are
there any
additional or
alternative
problems and
treatments which
we should keep
in mind?”
Attending: Chest pain as originally seen
in this patient may occur and be
confounded with manifestations of
pericarditis, pulmonary embolism,
esophageal perforation, aortic
dissection among several other
problems to exclude. These other
problems should be ruled out .”
Rebuttals:
Differential
diagnosis to
consider as a
possible
exclusionary
condition and
criterion for other
management of
this kind of patient.
Resident: “So, if
we successfully
rule out all those
other problems,
does it look like
we did the right
thing?”
Attending: You definitely did! Yes, this is
a case of myocardial infarction which
required the clinical management you
proposed and ordered.”
Conclusion of the
argument. Claim:
Proposition at
which we arrive as a
result of our
reasoning and
which we defend in
the argument by
citing all
supporting
elements and
argument building
blocks.
Search Pocayo ::




Custom Search