Autism awareness has increased in recent years in part because it is marked by confusion and controversy. The confusion and controversy stem from the fact that there are many beliefs about autism but little agreement. In this dissertation I examined the rhetoric produced by three primary groups?professional autism experts, caregivers to children with autism and mainstream media. In particular, I studied how each group explains autism. Explanations are vehicles for persuasion; they advance particular viewpoints about an illness. I conducted a rhetorical analysis of the three discourses produced by these groups, highlighting the most cohesive themes to emerge from the discourse. To study professional autism experts? explanations, I analyzed articles in autism?s flagship research journal and research articles from other journals and key books for additional insight. A computer metaphor guided expert explanations of autism. To define autism through one of most advanced and culturally accepted technological devices lent significant credibility to the explanations. Next, I studied the caregiver explanations, first conducting interviews with 19 parents to children with autism and then I analyzed the transcripts. Caregivers described autism as a social pathology; their children with autism were different and distant, or alien-like. The pathology affected people with autism, their caregivers and their families, many other neuro-typical people, and it also determined the course of treatment for the person with autism. Finally, mainstream media often explained autism in terms of its conflicts, framing its explanations of autism with a war metaphor. The vaccine debate received a significant attention, recharacterizing the role of medical institutions and health practitioners. Caregivers became the heroes, using their personal experiences as weapons against healthcare practitioners and their science. Caregivers also dealt with the invasion of autism, struggling for ways to return their children closer to the boundary that exists between the child with autism and the neuro-typical child.

Vaccination is power—power to prevent disease, power to shape populations, power to define sickness and health, and power to compel scientific beliefs into the bodies of people around the globe. It is unsurprising, therefore, that vaccinations have garnered centuries of dissent. Specifically, the conscience—the parent or patient’s perceived right to make vaccination decisions based on personal perceptions of acceptable risks—has been used since vaccination’s inception as a rationale for individual rights to refuse vaccines in the face of the very public health goals that vaccinations aim to achieve. Existing studies of vaccine disputes in medical literature have understood vaccine questions to be a problem of scientific knowledge or literacy, claiming largely that vaccine skepticism arises from a lack of proper comprehension or understanding of the scientific and medical bases for vaccination or statistical evidence proving vaccines are safe and effective. Studies of vaccination controversy in social science, communications, and historical literatures have largely examined the role that alternative notions of risk valuation, sources of trusted health information (such as preferring the advice of friends and neighbors to doctors), or conceptions of uncertainty have played in largely parental decision making about childhood vaccinations. Despite these extensive studies of vaccine sentiment, vaccine skepticism and refusal remains a small, though significant, voice in public debate. This dissertation examines vaccine discourses as object-oriented rhetorics—as rhetorics shaped and defined by the physicality of the vaccine’s operation—as a way of re-conceptualizing the vaccine debate. Using object-oriented theories from computer programming, philosophy, and rhetoric, this research examines the professional and public voices that make up contemporary vaccine controversy. Through three data sets, including interviews with physicians, parent discourses produced on the Internet, and survey responses from young adults, this dissertation observes that vaccines function as objects that have multiple, coexisting operations for different actors across the medical system. Consequently, vaccination controversy can be conceptualized not as accurate versus inaccurate understandings of science or as a conflict of perspectives, but instead as a by-product of multiple ontologies of vaccines at work under competing disease exigencies. / Ph. D.

<p>This dissertation proposes curricular methods for medical writing programs for medical simulation  laboratories at universities and hospitals. Drawing on historical literature of embodiment in  anatomy instruction, I argue medical simulation laboratories pose challenges and opportunities for  medical and nursing students to conceptualize clinical expertise through medical documentation.  I developed a corpus of mission statements across a variety of universities and regulatory agencies  to provide qualitative data and examine how expertise and embodied professional identity can be  developed through medical progress notes, narrative charting, and SOAP notes as writing  strategies suited for risk assessment outcomes and professionalization. I envision my dissertation  as a retrospective examination of programmatic and pedagogical values concerning the role of  writing in risk assessment, technical communication, and medical expertise. </p>

This project considers how disability studies and rhetorical studies—specifically the area of medical rhetoric—might usefully inform one another. In particular, this project examines prenatal testing for Down syndrome as a rhetorical situation that initiates and circulates many different discourses about Down syndrome. Chapter One begins by examining a frequently cited statistic in critiques of prenatal testing—the estimated pregnancy termination rate after a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. It explores the validity of this statistic and uses this discussion to suggest that the effects of prenatal testing on social understandings of Down syndrome are complex and largely unknown. Chapter Two argues that intellectual disabilities, like Down syndrome, are underrepresented in disability studies literature and that their absence can be partially attributed to models of disability used in the field. Chapter Three argues that rhetorical analysis provides a means of examining how Down syndrome is discursively constructed. Chapter Four describes the events of prenatal testing for Down syndrome and analyzes the events as a rhetorical situation. In addition, it reviews feminist, disability, and cultural critiques of prenatal testing demonstrating the strengths of each strand of scholarship and suggesting where rhetorical analysis might provide new information. Chapters Five and Six provide analysis of two commentaries on the rhetorical situation of prenatal testing—genetic counseling discourse and parent discourse. These chapters find that ideal genetic counseling discourse offers pregnant women some opportunities to resist medicalization but also exhibits tension between what counselors say they do and what their rhetorical practice affords, especially regarding disability. In addition, analysis shows that users of prenatal testing are concerned with several factors of decision-making that are either not emphasized or ignored entirely in genetic counseling discourse. This project concludes that although different discourses about Down syndrome are available, elements of the prenatal testing situation make it easier for participants to draw on some discourses rather than others. Furthermore, it appears that certain events in the prenatal testing situation—such as the offer of amniocentesis—operate rhetorically in tacit ways, obscuring the relationship between the choice to undergo genetic screening and perceived meanings of Down syndrome. / Ph. D.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In 2011 the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) published the Regulations on Hyperandrogenism, a health policy banning female athletes from track and field competition if their natural levels of testosterone were found to be higher than those of most female athletes. In 2014, Dutee Chand, a sprinter from India, was banned from competition based on these regulations. She appealed her ban in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and as a result the 2011 IAAF Hyperandrogenism Regulations were suspended for two years. The issues at stake in the suspension of these regulations are, at their core, rhetorical issues related to health and medical technical communication: how information about health and medicine is communicated to stakeholders, the ethics of such communication, and the implications of such communication. They are also issues related to the medical regulation of sex and gender: Chand’s case is the latest in a history of sex verification testing of elite female athletes that began well before 2011. In this study I use feminist critical discourse analysis methods within the computer assisted qualitative analysis software program NVivo to analyze the 2011 IAAF Hyperandrogenism Regulations and the transcript of the CAS Award that suspended them. I argue that the 2011 IAAF Regulations and the CAS Award are an example of what I describe as a closed, Foucauldian system, which is not open to outside voices, stakeholders, expertise, or evidence. I also argue for the use of a heuristic alongside a feminist technical communication perspective on health and medical rhetorics that technical communicators might use to insert themselves into closed Foucauldian systems such as this one in order to enact positive change.

No description available.

No description available.