Ethical or Unethical Persuasion?

Written Communication Jul 2009

Ellen Barton Wayne State University ; Susan Eggly Wayne State University

Abstract

Based on a sample of 22 oncology encounters, this article presents a discourse analysis of positive, neutral, or negative valence in the presentation of three elements of informed consent—purpose, benefits, and risks—in offers to participate in clinical trials. It is found that physicians regularly present these key elements of consent with a positive valence, perhaps blurring the distinction between clinical care and clinical research in trial offers. The authors argue that the rhetoric of trial offers constructs and reflects the complex relationships of two competing ethical frameworks—contemporary bioethics and professional medical ethics—both aimed at governing the discourse of trial offers. The authors consider the status of ethical or unethical persuasion within each framework, proposing what is called the best-option principle as the ethical principle governing trial offers within professional medical ethics.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2009-07-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088309336936
Open Access: Closed
Topics: discourse analysis multilingual writers

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

Campeau (2023)

Unofficial Vaccine Advocates: Technical Communication, Localization, and Care b…

Technical Communication Quarterly
Reed (2018)

Building on Bibliography: Toward Useful Categorization of Research in Rhetorics…

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Angeli et al. (2018)

Introduction to the Special Issue: Medical Humanities and/or the Rhetoric of He…

Technical Communication Quarterly
Sterponi et al. (2017)

Endangered Literacies? Affordances of Paper-Based Literacy in Medical Practice …

Written Communication
Cagle et al. (2015)

Climate Change Research Across Disciplines: The Value and Uses of Multidiscipli…

Technical Communication Quarterly

Cites in this index (1)

Barton (2008)

Further Contributions from the Ethical Turn in Composition/Rhetoric: Analyzing …

College Composition and Communication

Also cites 21 works outside this index ↓

10.1200/JCO.1999.17.10.3324

↗
10.1200/JCO.2007.14.8114

↗
10.1097/01.cco.0000166654.23169.a2

↗
10.3758/BF03206411

↗
10.1057/9780230595477_2

↗
10.1016/0277-9536(88)90343-7

↗
10.1016/S0959-8049(97)00249-9

↗
10.1353/ken.2004.0003

↗
10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00204-1

↗
10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.007

↗
10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3

↗
10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8

↗
10.1002/0471264385.wei0315

↗
10.1016/0895-4356(92)90110-9

↗
10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.019

↗
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980615)82:12<2467::AID-CNCR22>3.0.CO;2-M

↗
10.2307/3528434

↗
10.1080/03605310701255750

↗
10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00073.x

↗
Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context . In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Ha…

↗
Schneider, C. (1998)

The practice of autonomy: Patients, doctors, and medical decisions

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 17 View in citation network →