An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor’s record of treating similarly afflicted patients. Through gaining such access, the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition.Write

Critically, or even deathly, ill patients confront difficult situations before entering the medical room: Whom do I trust to treat me effectively and successfully? Making that decision is made more difficult when the patient does not know enough about the doctor's record handling similar patients. In other words, the patient cannot make a decision without full information about the doctor's suitability and competence. However, doctors can solve such a conflict by giving him or her access to those records. As such, any patient should have access to a doctor's record because doing so helps the patient determine whether he or she is being treated by the right one. Even more important, however, is the fact that the patient knows the doctor before entering a hospital or medical clinical, allowing for a friendly and comfortable environment between both patient and doctor.

By giving the patient his or her doctor's records, the patient can determine whether that doctor is well-suited to treat him or her. Flipping through the pages of the doctor's records, the patient learns about other situations that doctor has handled and what the doctor's actions were. Because the patient knows their needs, he or she can identify with a particular patient and say to him- or herself, "This patient dealt with similar circumstances, and the doctor handled the case appropriately. I now know that the doctor would do the same for me." If anything, having access to records allows the patient, then, to tacitly collaborate with the doctor in providing them with the medical attention they need.

In addition, by giving the patient access to the doctor's track record, he or she quickly becomes knowledgeable of the doctor's overall background as a professional. As a result, the patient almost gets to know the doctor like a colleague, and, in turn, the patient and doctor create a comfortable, friendly, and even sociable environment. More importantly, because they create such an environment, the patient is comfortable asking him or her pressing questions that any patient should ask, such as whether the doctor is indeed making the right decision or how much research the doctor took in making the decision. This environment is critical in treating a patient effectively. Otherwise, the doctor may get frustrated and embarrassed when such a psychological contract has not been established, and the patient may leave the hospital only to find him- or herself sicker than they were when arriving to the hospital.

At times, however, providing the patient a doctor's medical background handling similar cases is not advantageous. Hospitals and doctors' offices handle excessive red tape, which hinders the ease at which they can treat patients speedily and with agility. Adding yet another piece of red tape will further slow down the process of treating a patient. If a patient comes to a hospital with a legal guardian immediately asking to have access to the doctor's records, the legal guardian may be hurting their loved one. Because doctors often need to work quickly, waiting for the legal guardian's approval (because he or she needs to read his or her records) may lead to adverse consequences: The patient may finally be treated but already suffered heavy damage to, for example, their kidneys because the doctor could not operate. If anything, asking for records serves as a setback that is not necessary.

As aforementioned, treating a patient is not easy, especially when the patient is dealing with an illness that suddenly started ailing them or one that they have been dealing with for several years. As a result, it is critical that the patient knows the doctor well and is comfortable with him or her. Years from now, after Congress or a similar legislative body establishes a statute stating that hospitals must give the patient access to the doctor's medical background, there will be a significant difference in the rate of success in treating patients with similar ailments. More importantly, this will provide aspiring doctors with a framework by which to collaborate, not treat, with patients, setting the basis for which doctors should handle new cases. Considering the issue, it seems odd that such a decision has not been made to give patients access to a doctor's records.