Ethical or Unethical Persuasion?: The Rhetoric of Offers to Participate in Clinical Trials

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
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (6)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly
  4. Written Communication
  5. Communication Design Quarterly
Show all 6 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly

References (44) · 1 in this index

  1. Code of federal regulations title 45 public welfare part 46 protection of human subjects
  2. 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.10.3324
  3. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.8114
  4. 10.1097/01.cco.0000166654.23169.a2
  5. 10.3758/BF03206411
Show all 44 →
  1. Clinical investigation (E-2.07)
  2. 10.1057/9780230595477_2
  3. College Composition and Communication
  4. Speaking for another: Ethics-in-interaction in medical encounters
  5. Principles of biomedical ethics
  6. Bernick, P., Bernhardt, S. & Cuppen, G. (2008). The genre of the clinical study report in drug development. I…
  7. 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90343-7
  8. 10.1016/S0959-8049(97)00249-9
  9. 10.1353/ken.2004.0003
  10. 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00204-1
  11. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.007
  12. Chafe, W. (2001). The analysis of discourse flow. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook …
  13. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3
  14. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8
  15. 10.1002/0471264385.wei0315
  16. 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90110-9
  17. American medicine: The question for competence
  18. Social Science and Medicine
  19. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.019
  20. Heifferon, B. & Brown, S. (2008). Introduction. In B. Heifferon & S. Brown (Eds.), Rhetoric of healthcare: Es…
  21. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical care
  22. Harrison's principles of internal medicine
  23. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980615)82:12<2467::AID-CNCR22>3.0.CO;2-M
  24. Language log
  25. Paper presented at the COMET (Communication, Medicine, and Ethics) Conference
  26. 10.2307/3528434
  27. 10.1080/03605310701255750
  28. Enhancing recruitment to early phase cancer trials: Literature review
  29. Boosting cancer trial participation
  30. What is a clinical trial?
  31. The Belmont report
  32. Clinical trials
  33. Understanding clinical trials
  34. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00073.x
  35. Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context . In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Ha…
  36. The practice of autonomy: Patients, doctors, and medical decisions
  37. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action
  38. Health and the rhetoric of medicine
  39. Written Communication