Distortion and the politics of pain relief: A habermasian analysis of medicine in the media

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 364-391

  Koerber, Amy ^a,b   Arnett, E Jonathan ^a   Cumbie, Tamra ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b English Department   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication ethics; Habermas; Media coverage of science and health; Media studies; Medical research; Rhetoric of science and medicine

Indexed keywords

EID: 44849137190     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: 15524574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651908315985     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Bazell, R. (1990). Medicine show. New Republic, 202, 16-19.
2. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Blakeslee, A.M. (2001). Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Blyler, N.R. (1994). Habermas, empowerment, and professional discourse. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 125-145.
5. Calsamiglia, H. (Ed.). (2003). Popularization discourse [Special issue]. Discourse Studies, 5 ( 2 ).
6. Camann, W. (2005). Pain relief during labor. New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 718-720.
7. Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrdinger, and Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Charney, D. (2004 a). Introduction: The rhetoric of popular science. Written Communication, 21 (3). 3-5.
9. Charney, D. (Ed.). (2004 b). The rhetoric of popular science [Special issue]. Written Communication, 21 ( 3 ).
10. Check, W.A. (1987). Beyond the political model of reporting: Nonspecific symptoms in media communication about AIDS. Review of Infectious Diseases, 9, 987-1000.
11. Dayton, D. (2002). Evaluating environmental impact statements as communicative action. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16, 355-405.
12. Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296.
13. Fahnestock, J. (1989). Argument in different forums: The Bering Crossover controversy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14 (3). 26-42.
14. Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15. Fumento, M. (1989). The myth of heterosexual AIDS. New York: Basic Books.
16. Goetzl, L.M. (2002). ACOG practice bulletin no. 36. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists: Obstetric analgesia and anesthesia. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 100, 177-191.
17. Grady, D. (2005, February 17). Study urges early painkillers in labor for first deliveries. New York Times. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/health/17birth.html
18. Gross, A.G. (1996). The rhetoric of science (2 nd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Gross, A.G., & Gurak, L.J. (2005). The state of rhetoric of science and technology [Special issue]. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14 ( 3 ).
20. Gross, A.G., & Keith, W.M. (1997). Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
21. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
22. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
23. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
24. Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1996 )
25. Habermas, J. (2005). Truth and justification (B. Fultner, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 2003 )
26. Harris, R.A. (2005 a). Reception studies in the rhetoric of science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14, 249-255.
27. Harris, R. A. (Ed.). (2005 b). Rhetoric and incommensurability. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor.
28. Heslam, J. (2005, February 17). Numbing news: Early epidural not too risky. Boston Herald, p. 8.
29. Iverson, C., Christiansen, S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P.B., Glass, R.M., Gregoline, B., et al. (2007). AMA manual of style: A guide for authors and editors (10 th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Killingsworth, M.J., & Palmer, J.S. (1992). Ecospeak: Rhetoric and environmental politics in America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
31. Klein, M.C. (2005 a, February 24). Early epidurals not shown to be cesarean section neutral. British Medical Journal. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7488/383#97205
32. Klein, M.C. (2005 b, February 19). Not epidural-Intrathecal. British Medical Journal. Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/ eletters/330/7488/383#97205
33. Klein, M.C. (2006 a). Does epidural analgesia increase rate of cesarean section ? Canadian Family Physician, 52, 419-421.
34. Klein, M.C. (2006 b). Epidural analgesia: Does it or doesn't it ? Birth, 33, 74-76.
35. Klein, M.C. (2006 c, August). Epidural analgesia: Is it increasing C-section rates ? Canadian Journal of Diagnosis, 33, 73-75.
36. Lewenstein, B.V. (1995). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social Studies of Science, 25, 403-436.
37. McDonald, S.P. (2005). The language of journalism in hormone replacement news. Written Communication, 22, 275-297.
38. Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5, 265-272.
39. Ohel, G., Gonen, R., Vaida, S., Barak, S., & Gaitini, L. (2006). Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in labor: Does it increase the risk of cesarean section? A randomized trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 194, 600-605.
40. Painkillers urged in early labor. (2005, February 17). Grand Rapids Press, p. A3.
41. Paul, D., Charney, D., & Kendall, A. (2001). Moving beyond the moment: Reception studies in the rhetoric of science. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 372-399.
42. Prelli, L.J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
43. Ross, S.M. (1994). A feminist perspective on technical communicative action: Exploring how alternative worldviews affect environmental remediation efforts. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 325-342.
44. Ruzek, S.B., Olesen, V.L., & Clarke, A.E. (1997). Women's health: Complexities and differences. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
45. Ryan, C. (2005). Struggling to survive: A study of editorial decision-making strategies at MAMM Magazine. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19, 353-376.
46. Scambler, G. (Ed.). (2001). Habermas, critical theory and health. London: Routledge.
47. Segal, J.Z. (2005). Health and the rhetoric of medicine. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
48. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. (2005, May 31). Researchers largely at fault for health risk studies that influence and confuse the public. Science Daily. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2005/05/050531230322.htm
49. Warnke, G. (1995). Communicative rationality and cultural values. In S. K. White (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Habermas (pp. 120-142). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50. Warren, M.E. (1995). The self in discursive democracy. In S. K. White (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Habermas (pp. 167-200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51. White, S.K. (1995). Reason, modernity, and democracy. In S. K. White (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Habermas (pp. 3-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52. Whitley, R. (1985). Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: Popularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics. In T. Shinn & R. Whitley (Eds.), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularization (Vol. 9, pp. 3-28). Dordrecht, Germany: Reidel.
53. Wilkes, M.S. (1997). The public dissemination of medical research: Problems and solutions. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 3-16.
54. Wong, C.A., Scavone, B.M., Peaceman, A.M., McCarthy, R.J., Sullivan, J.T., Diaz, N.T., et al. (2005). The risk of cesarean delivery with neuraxial analgesia given early versus late in labor. New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 655-665.
55. Wynn, J. (2007). Alone in the garden: How Gregor Mendel's inattention to audience may have affected the reception of his theory of inheritance in "Experiments in Plant Hybridization." Written Communication, 24, 3-27.