GRE: An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor’s record of treat

[testtaker39]

The writing was timed. It was done in 35 minutes. I should be faster in writing. :(

 

 

The task:

 

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.

 

My response:

 

The author’s claim about allowing an ailing patient access to his or her doctor's record of treating similarly afflicted patients assumes that the treatment record reflects the doctor's competence which might not be true in most cases. As there are both obvious and subtle differences in physical conditions and acceptance of drugs or treatments of different persons for the same disease, the treatment record may also have subtle differences accordingly which the ailing patient may not understand properly, thus failing to assess the doctor's competence correctly.

 

A simple difference in a patient’s case from others' cases may create major differences in a patient’s treatment record from that of others'. If an ailing patient does not have required knowledge to understand the stuff stated in a medical record, he/she might not be able to understand why do certain records differ and what are the reasons behind these differences. As a result, he/she might get puzzled and fail to apprehend the doctor's skill in treating that particular disease correctly. In this scenario, accessing the doctor's medical record is futile for the ailing patient’s part. For example, My mother is regularly seeing a doctor for the treatment of diabetes. Though she has a regular type of diabetes, her treatment is not the same as other diabetes patients since she has a major type of skin disease. If any diabetic patient, who intends to see the same doctor, take a look at my mother’s treatment record, he/she might get confused, make a wrong judgment about the doctor's competence and may decide not to see the doctor. Here, allowing the ailing patient to see previous treatment record of other patients may create an unjustifiable situation for both the doctor and the ailing patient, thus invalidates the authors claim.

 

Again, a patient might not follow the doctor’s prescription correctly and timely. If this was true for a previous case, which is very likely for the patients who are not that cautious, the treatment record would not reflect the usual course of disease diagnosis and treatment. In this case, an ailing patient, allowed to see the doctor's treatment record, might again have a wrong idea about the doctor's competence in treating a certain disease and this is obviously not fair. By not allowing an ailing patient to see the doctor's treatment record, wrong judgment about doctor's competence can be prevented and this is clearly contrary to the authors claim.

 

In medical ethics, a patient’s case history and treatment record is confidential. A patient may have a disease which could be marked with social stigma. For example, patients bearing Aids and sexually transmitted diseases are sometimes treated badly in some societies. People think that they are morally reprehensible in bearing these diseases. Allowing other ailing patients to see the the medical record will reveal this kind of information which may not be acceptable by the particular patient. So, it is vary justifiable to assume that an ailing patient should not be allowed to see a doctor's treatment record.

 

Considering all the explanations stated above, it seems very logical that a doctor's medical record is not representative of his competence. And also, it is often unethical. So it can be concluded that, the authors claim, which advocates allowing a doctor’s medical record, is not justifiable.