Physician-patient argumentation and communication, comparing Toulmin's model, pragma-dialectics, and American sociolinguistics.

This article discusses the application of theories of argumentation and communication to the field of medicine. Based on a literature review, the authors compare Toulmin's model, pragma-dialectics, and the work of Todd and Fisher, derived from American sociolinguistics. These approaches were selected because they belong to the pragmatic field of language. The main results were: pragma-dialectics characterizes medical reasoning more comprehensively, highlighting specific elements of the three disciplines of argumentation: dialectics, rhetoric, and logic; Toulmin's model helps substantiate the declaration of diagnostic and therapeutic hypotheses, and as part of an interpretive medicine, approximates the pragma-dialectical approach by including dialectical elements in the process of formulating arguments; Fisher and Todd's approach allows characterizing, from a pragmatic analysis of speech acts, the degree of symmetry/asymmetry in the doctor-patient relationship, while arguing the possibility of negotiating treatment alternatives.