Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Do patients have the right to doctor/patient confidentiality even when it poses a threat to the lives of others? By Janice Simpson
Janice begins her article by clearly stating a thesis statement in the introduction part of the essay, what Loftin (2011) calls a classical thesis statement. The introduction is attention-grabbing, and Janice wastes no time in setting the pace and tone of her essay. She clearly identifies the controversy that exists in doctor/patient controversy and makes it known where she stands in the whole issue. She is of the view that the medical status of the patients should be made open in cases where there is a risk to other people in society.
However, the way that Janice handles opposing views in this debate is not very clear. She fails to sufficiently acknowledge the existence of opposing views. Even though she mentions them in her essay, this is done in passing. A case in point is when she talks of the stigmatization that people living with HIV will go through when their status is disclosed. The opposing view in this paragraph is condensed into a single sentence. However, her arguments can be seen as classical in nature (Murray, 2004). This is given the fact that she has provided at least three points in support of her argument, and rebuttal, albeit unclear, to counterarguments.
Janice supports her points with credible evidence. For example, she supports her arguments on the rights of minors by citing the Munroe County Medical Society. She also uses examples that are cited by other credible sources to support her points. The use of Earwin Michael’s story in her argument on HIV and that of the mentally challenged man who held plane passengers hostage was excellent.
However, I have issues with some of the words that Janice uses in her essay. For example, the use of shorthand phrases like “etc” (refer to the last paragraph) makes the essay sound unprofessional. There is also the use of 1:1 (refer to paragraph 1), which I take to mean “one-on-one”. This is unprofessionalism, and I would advise Janice to avoid this as it waters down the quality of her essay. Janice also fails to cite sources appropriately in the text. This unprofessionalism in documentation is reflected on the references page. She should take note that references should appear on a new page, not as another paragraph after the conclusion. The writing used in the references page is not clear also. In other words, the references page is simply confusing.
In summary, I conclude that Janice’s essay is quite good. The arguments are clear, and the same goes for her stand on the controversy. However, this is overshadowed by the unprofessional writing style and the confusing references page.
Patients’ right to doctor/patient confidentiality by Michelle Morgans
Michelle introduces her essay by succinctly providing a background to her argument. This captures the attention of the reader, and it creates the urge to read more and see what the author thinks of the issue. She opens the essay by alluding to the many laws that govern the health care system as far as ethics and patient confidentiality is concerned. At the end of the paragraph, she provides a classical thesis statement (Magurran, 2006), by stating her stand in the whole issue of patient/doctor confidentiality. She clearly identifies the controversy that exists in the field and states her opinion regarding the same.
Michelle does articulate the two sides to her debate. However, she fails to give sufficient attention to the counterarguments. She just states the counterarguments, but she fails to critically analyze them or articulate their relationship to her point of view. It is not clear whether her style of arguing is classical or Rogerian (Aplin, 2004). She seems to oscillate between the two styles of argument. But she seems to favor Rogerian more, either through default or by design. She provides a summary of views from both sides of the debate, then tries to provide a common ground between them (Aplin, 2004). But the attention given to the opposing view, as earlier stated, is wanting.
The support she gives her points is excellent at the least. She provides credible and authoritative sources to support her arguments. This is for example the Patient’s Bill of Rights that she cites conspicuously, starting in paragraph 2. Her use of grammar is also commendable. There are a few grammatical errors, for example in the opening sentence of the essay where she seems to confuse her verbs and structure of the sentence. But apart from these isolated cases, her grammar is acceptable. There is no use of informal or unprofessional language, and the diction is appropriate for the target audience.
Michelle uses sufficient in-text citations to acknowledge the sources she uses throughout the document. She makes use of quotation marks when she needs to quote a source directly. Her in-text citations are all reflected in the references list. However, she seems to forget that the reference list should always begin in a new page; it is not a continuation of the conclusion.
All in all, I find Michelle’s essay to be commendable. She makes an effort to provide a balanced argument, acknowledging and refuting counterarguments, albeit half-heartedly. Her grammar is also good, and she acknowledges all the sources she uses on the essay. However, she needs to work more on the reference page, as well as sufficiently acknowledging the existence of opposing viewpoints.
References
Loftin, J. M. (2011). Criticizing argumentative discourse. New York: Free Press.
Murray, U. H. (2004). Writing styles in English literature. Long Beach: Prentice Hall.
Aplin, N. V. (2004). Providing a balanced and fair critique. New York: Free Press.
Magurran, Y. N. (2006). Techniques of fair critique. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.