A doctor's argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation

Abstract

In medical consultation, a doctor can appeal to his medical knowledge or expertise as a sign of the acceptability of his diagnosis, prognosis and/or advice ("It’s best to take these loratadine tablets, because I have seen them work really well against hay fever"). This could be quite convincing, as the patient typically requests a medical consultation because he does not know exactly what his health problem amounts to, how serious this problem is and/or what to do about it, while he does expect the doctor to be able to determine these matters. Yet, in some cases, an argument by authority from a doctor can be too paternalistic and does not allow for further discussion about the doctor’s medical judgment or advice. In this study, it is investigated under which conditions a doctor’s argument by authority may constitute a reasonable and effective strategic manoeuvre in medical consultation. To establish the conditions under which a doctor’s argument by authority may constitutes a reasonable and effective strategic manoeuvre in medical consultation, this study is divided into an analytical part (chapter 2-5) and an empirical part (chapter 6-8). In the analytical part, the conditions under which a doctor’s argument by authority can be regarded as reasonable are established. In the empirical part, the conditions under which a doctor’s argument by authority can be perceived as effective are established.