Diagnosis
In diagnosis, the doctor seems to tell the caller that it may be a food bug. This brings resistance as the caller had stated that the meal has never caused the husband stomach pains. The caller may term the diagnosis as controversial; however, the patient does not seem to argue but continues to listen to the doctor. The doctor gives his diagnostic utterance to the caller to incorporate the evidence provided by the caller about the husband. The doctor telling the caller that the illness is a food bug sort of this brings uncertainty, which undermines his authority as an expert. Due to uncertainty, the doctor resort to diagnostic evidence where he tells the caller to give the patient fluids for the vomiting and diarrhea, which earns him back the claim to knowledge. In administering treatment, He asserts authority and accountability by telling the caller that for diarrhea and vomiting, he should give the patient fluids.
The doctor does not refer to the verbally given evidence when giving diagnosis but rather as a plain assertion format. The activity environment is enough for evidence, and the accountability of diagnosis becomes unspoken and incarnate. The doctor also balances between accountability and authority where the medical reasoning of the doctor and the expectations that bring a competitive orientation from the caller that the doctor will ensure the diagnostic process is intelligent and observable, thus justifying the diagnosis statements of the doctor through the evidence for the diagnosis. The doctor saying that he will later visit the patient seems to satisfy the caller despite the doctor giving little treatment as she had expected.
The caller in lines 81 to 84 is compelling the doctor to continue by the use of the word yeah, where she expects further directions from the doctor. She already has given her areas of concern before line 81 and hopes that the doctor will keep in mind what she had already started so that whatever he decides, he keeps in mind that the situation her husband is in is a serious one.
However, she already seems to have a remedy to her husband stomach pains, which the magnesia that the husband had not taken, and her calling the doctor appears to be just a remedy which is preceded by some assessment of whether it is relevant to call the doctor keeping in mind that she could manage the husband ailment which brings to the uncertainty of whether there is need of the doctor visit. However, when the doctor says he will visit, the caller seems now to be at ease and compliments the doctor as kind showing that she indeed was looking for the doctor’s visit at her home to see the patient, her husband.
In line 81 to 84, the caller is not in has to respond, and there is an interval before she answers, showing that she expects more, thus compelling the doctor to continue giving her more information since the caller is not satisfied by what she is hearing from the doctor and the diagnostic treatment that the doctor is telling her to apply to her husband does not feel enough or satisfactory. She seems unsure of the medications and sees that the doctor may have taken the problem on a lighter note, which seems to be the opposite of her expectations hence the delay in her response. In her call with the doctor, the caller in line 84 to 88 responds with no interval from what the doctor is telling her; the’ =’ sign indicates that there is no interval between their utterances and that as the doctor says he will visit the caller immediately responds showing that she was eager to hear this and that the message is entirely satisfactory indicating that it was the main reason why the caller had made the call, to get the doctor drop by and check at her husband who is reasonably ill.