The objective of this study was to identify the main arguments used during public discussions of the More Doctors Program and analyze the structure of the arguments and their compliance with the rules for critical discussions. Discussions broadcast on television and the Internet involving public and civil society actors were examined. The analysis was based on the pragmadialectical approach and critical discussion model developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst. In all the discussions, fallacies in the arguments can be detected, which hinders resolving differences of opinion. These impediments to dialogue also make it difficult to solve concrete problems that could help move the More Doctors Program forward and improve the access of the population to health care.
Distribution of physicians; Health policy; More Doctors Program; Argumentation Theory; Pragma-dialectics