The empowered patient on a historical-rhetorical model: 19th-century patent-medicine ads and the 21st-century health subject.

The contemporary health subject, often described as a new, empowered patient, is not simply a character in a story of progress toward knowledge and power, away from credulity and passivity. Before the 20th century, and the assertion of a medical system that became frankly paternalistic, laypeople adjudicated on many matters of illness and its treatments. That is, 18th- and 19th-century health subjects were empowered too, and studying them, especially as consumers of health products, helps us develop a more nuanced account of our current medico-commercial selves.

Sex, drugs, and rhetoric: The case of flibanserin for 'female sexual dysfunction'.

In August, 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Addyi (flibanserin) for the treatment of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder in premenopausal women. Ten months before that, the FDA had held a Patient-Focused Drug Development Public Meeting to address the 'unmet need' for a pharmaceutical to treat that condition. I attended that meeting as a rhetorical observer.

The sexualization of the medical.

The medicalization of sex is part of an already-in-place discursive problem that can be illuminated by looking at efforts to sexualize the medical. "Erectile dysfunction," "female sexual dysfunction," and their real and imagined pharmacopia, do not constitute the medicalization of sex; they are effects of sex already having been-to borrow a term from Peter Conrad ( 1992 )-healthicized. The equation of sex and health, as cultural common sense, has made health seem like the natural discourse for thinking about sex in the first place.

Naming migraine and those who have it.

Medical language has implications for both public perception of and institutional responses to illness. A consensus panel of physicians, academics, advocates, and patients with diverse experiences and knowledge about migraine considered 3 questions: (1) What is migraine: an illness, disease, syndrome, condition, disorder, or susceptibility? (2) What ought we call someone with migraine? (3) What should we not call someone with migraine? Although consensus was not reached, the responses were summarized and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Panelists participated in writing and editing the paper.

"Compliance" to "concordance": a critical view.

Advocates of "concordance" describe it as a new model of shared decision-making between physicians and patients based on a partnership of equals. "Concordance" is meant to make obsolete the notion of "compliance," in which patients are seen as, ideally, following doctors' orders. This essay offers a critical view of concordance, arguing that the literature itself on concordance, including materials at the web site of Medicines Partnership, the implementation arm in Great Britain of the concordance model, is full of contradiction; concordance, in fact, harbors an ideology of compliance.

lIlness as argumentation: a prolegomenon to the rhetorical study of contestable complaints.

The resources of rhetorical theory, the classical theory of persuasion, can be marshaled to help physicians evaluate patient complaints for which there is no corresponding objective evidence and which rely, therefore, on the persuasiveness of patients to be taken seriously (contestable complaints). An appropriate focus for the evaluation of such complaints is argumentation itself: what, in the absence of objective evidence of disease, counts as a good argument for a patient to be eligible for medical attention? How do patients convince physicians that they are ill and in need of care - and, conversely, how do physicians convince patients, when the need arises, that they are well and not good candidates for medical intervention? Two rhetorical concepts are especially productive for the analysis of argumentation. One is kairos, the Sophistic notion of contingency, and the other is pisteis, the Aristotelian catalogue of persuasive appeals.