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.
Some people think that an ailing patient should have access to his/her doctor's record of treating similar afflicted patients. They argue that it helps them determine how competent the doctor is while dealing with that medical condition. However, I believe that this ease of access may give rise to a couple of problems and should be avoided. I will provide three reasons in the following to support my view.
First of all, this idea can be disrespectful. Determining how competent a doctor is with a specific medical condition by checking his medical record seems like being skeptical about the skills and knowledge the doctor has gained over years of study and practice. It shows that patients do not trust the doctor with a particular medical condition. This is analogical to a parent asking record of a teacher in school to see if the students guided by her score good grades or not. Thus, checking doctor's record should be avoided and mutual trust should be established.
Second of all, what are the odds of getting an ace everytime playing cards? It is possible that the doctor's record of treating the disease of patients is very good but it might change. Every patient is different and each one's disease might have to be dealt with in a bit different manner. If something works out well for others that does not mean it is going to work out well for you. Also, if a new doctor is not given a chance or an opportunity to treat a medical condition then there are chances he may never be able to treat someone due to the record. Thus, doctor's treatment might or might not work everytime and should not be trusted based on the record.
Third of all, the record of doctor's treatment can be used for malicious practices. Competitor's may try accessing the doctor's record and may even try contacting the patients the doctor has treated in the past. To avoid such practices, no personel records of treatment should be publicised. Another way of using this information for bad purpose is where any patient is unfortunately not treated with a medical condition might drag doctor to legal court and sue him or her for bias against him or her. There is a need for security if such information are publicy available.
To sum up, people may argue that it is in best interest of ailing patients to have access of the doctor's record to check his or her experience in the domain. However, I disagree and think it should not be publicised.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-20 | JENIRSHAH | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | samruddh_shah | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-02 | Harshali_15 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | Masterji | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-26 | sarahaduwa | 66 | view |
- In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is toassemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offersseveral advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge,exp 60
- Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest events in 83
- Young people enjoy life more than older people do. 60
- "Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia andconcluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire villagerather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews w 69
- It is more important to keep old friends than it is to make new friends. 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 40, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'in the best'.
Suggestion: in the best
... To sum up, people may argue that it is in best interest of ailing patients to have acc...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, thus, well, while, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2022.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 428.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.72429906542 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53198057392 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 215.323595506 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481308411215 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 618.3 704.065955056 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.0725594431 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9090909091 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4545454545 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68181818182 5.21951772744 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.454309626012 0.243740707755 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134543957899 0.0831039109588 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134251297549 0.0758088955206 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.287997255003 0.150359130593 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.089223451644 0.0667264976115 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.1392134831 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 48.8420337079 141% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 12.1743820225 68% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 12.1639044944 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.46 8.38706741573 89% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 100.480337079 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.