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.
The trust that a patient shows towards his doctor is a crucial part of in the course of the treatment. While it is imperative that patients should be informed if a doctor is competent enough to treat the conditions they are suffering from, I do not completely agree with the given recommendation that sick patients must be provided access to past records of the doctor to determine the latter's competency in treating his illness.
I hold this opinion for two reasons which I will explore in the essay.
To begin with, patients lack the expertise and knowledge of a doctor. They may not always understand why the medical professional took a particular course of treatment for a particular patient. For example- He may have chosen to not operate on a particular patient with a cancer because the disease may have been advanced and a surgery may have done more bad than good for that patient. Another patient with a similar condition, who is given access to the record of this case, may attribute the doctor's decision of not performing the surgery to the ultimate demise of the patient. He may wrongfully conclude that the doctor lacks the expertise to treat his disease. Thus, the inadequate medical knowledge of the patients can cause them to come to conclusions about the doctors, which may not always be true.
Secondly, a patients accessing the past records of the doctor may cause him to stumble upon a few failures that may have occured in the doctor's treatments in the past. This may have been due to various reasons that the patient may not always be aware about. For instance, if an antibiotic prescribed by the medical expert, fails for a patient; then the next patient accessing his records may develop a negative opinion regarding the doctor. and he may refuse to try the drug. When in reality, antibiotics that fail to work on one patient may be very effective on the other. Thus reading about a few misfortunes in a doctor's professional career may cause the patient to lose faith in any of the lines of treatments that he prescribes.
However it is true that some doctors have been engaging in some unethical practices and have been charged of gross medical negligence in the past. It is imperative that the patients should be given proper informaton about such cases.
Thus, in my opinion, due to the inadequate knowledge of the patients about medicine and them not knowing the exact reason behind the failure of treatment that the doctor has prescribed in the past, the patient should not be given complete access to their doctor's past medical records as it may hinder the doctor patient relationship.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 11, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a patient' or simply 'patients'?
Suggestion: a patient; patients
...ch may not always be true. Secondly, a patients accessing the past records of the docto...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 442, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
... negative opinion regarding the doctor. and he may refuse to try the drug. When in ...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...es of treatments that he prescribes. However it is true that some doctors have been ...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 335, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hinder the doctor patient relationship.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, for example, for instance, in my opinion, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2180.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 451.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83370288248 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63987372604 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.439024390244 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 683.1 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.3602700924 60.3974514979 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.111111111 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0555555556 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.88888888889 5.21951772744 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.458365959648 0.243740707755 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166418918052 0.0831039109588 200% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0929942897628 0.0758088955206 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.249971815194 0.150359130593 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.131446058074 0.0667264976115 197% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 100.480337079 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.