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 a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Doctors are considered one level above other human beings, primarily because they save lives. A doctor like any other professional grows with experience. The prompt suggests that ailing patients should have access to doctor's record of treating similarly afflicted patients, but I do not entirely agree with this claim for the following three reasons.
To begin, people should not be the ones judging the expertise of a particular doctor. An ailing patient might make an imprudent decision in choosing a doctor. For instance, if an ailing patient has the access to the records of all doctors, then she might invest a lot of time in choosing the right doctor, and this may result in further decline of her health. Also, every individual is different, maybe the patient rejects the 'appropriate' doctor because there was one case of failure in his record. This does not mean that the same thing will happen to her, because different human bodies react differently to drugs. The patient before might have an allergy to the prescribed medicine or maybe had the germ antibodies developed sooner. So if the records are available, patients might wrong decisions because after all they are at least not as experienced as the doctors themselves.
Furthermore, if one doctor is exceedingly good in a particular domain, then each and every patient will go after that doctor. For example, Doctor Sharma. who was the leading lung specialist, during the dramatic pollution increase in Delhi, there were many cases reported to him just because of the reputation of the doctor. This put many other doctors out of business. And, due to these overwhelming cases, he could not treat each and every case and this resulted in many people going without treatment and eventually dying. So if the records are available, such scenarios will increase, which will eventually harm the patients.
Finally, doctors do not get all their expertise just by the reading the books. Books just impart them the required knowledge. When a doctor completes gets his degree, he is not immediately sent to a hospital to treat patients from there on, she has to first work under an experienced doctor and only then is she allowed to practice alone. This might weaken their case of having a bad record inadvertently, or because it depends more on an individual patient. For example, if a doctor who has more than ten years worth of experience and still has a bad record of treating lung patients, then if this past record is available to the future patients, it may benefit them and change their decision in choosing the appropriate doctor. In fact, even the doctor should be responsible enough to realize his domain of expertise and advise the patient to see someone else.
In conclusion, I think while it may not be a bad idea to provide access to these records, it will certainly not provide us with the best results. It would be much advantageous both for the people and the doctors if the current system keeps going.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 155, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Who
...hat doctor. For example, Doctor Sharma. who was the leading lung specialist, during...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, similarly, so, still, then, while, after all, as to, at least, for example, for instance, i think, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2486.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 504.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93253968254 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58990520474 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503968253968 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 770.4 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.250667148 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.583333333 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.08333333333 5.21951772744 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.365621863834 0.243740707755 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104739015859 0.0831039109588 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0796499818972 0.0758088955206 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.206453058682 0.150359130593 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847951061922 0.0667264976115 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.