An ailing patient should have easy access to his or 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 the medical condition.
The proposal in favor of having easy access to the doctor's records is rather disputable question. However, due to such permission the ailing patient can decide if the doctor is competent or inadequate of treating in his/her illness. It seems positively for the patients, in the first place, at first glance, but this memo needs more profound analysis.
First and foremost, a sick person wants to be convinced in professionalism of his/her attending medical doctor. How can we persuade ourselves to trust doctor or to doubt in proficiency? The learning curve of doctor shows either certificate degree or case history of his/her patients. If you do not trust to his diploma or issued university, you can go to the next step and ask for doctor's record of treating.
If the doctor decides to reject your request, I will agree absolutely with his/hers decision. In consideration of Hippocratic Oath, the doctor can not divulge the epicrisis of his/her patients.
Moreover, the course of treatment for one person can not be suitable for another. Each person has own specifics of body and dependencies of reactions. For example, the illness of leaver influences on the color of tongue. Also, it is worth not to forget about personal allergies on different medicaments.
Requiring the access to the doctor's records can be considered as a divulgence of patients epicrisis and can be prosecuted by law, just only if the patient didn't give a permission to spread his personal treatment information.
Sentence: Also, it is worth not to forget about personal allergies on different medicaments.
Description: An adjective is not usually followed by a negator
Suggestion: Refer to worth and not
Sentence: Requiring the access to the doctor's records can be considered as a divulgence of patients epicrisis and can be prosecuted by law, just only if the patient didn't give a permission to spread his personal treatment information.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to patients and epicrisis
flaws:
No. of Words: 251 350
No. of Characters: 1211 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200 (need more words)
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Don not use "his/hers","didn't" in essay writing
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 251 350
No. of Characters: 1211 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.98 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.825 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.809 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 94 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 68 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 53 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.929 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.787 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.608 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.152 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5