Is there any fluent expression, grammar or punctuation problem in this paragraph
From the doctor’s viewpoint, medical negligence is a scenario that is difficult to prove and is too reliant on hypothetical situations. In the case of Roger v Whitaker(1992) 175 CLR 479, the application of the Bolam principle, often used to determine medical negligence in the United Kingdom, could have potentially lead to a judgement that the doctor was not negligent (GM&P, 2016). This principle states that if a practice is considered consistent with the guidelines of medical professionals, there is no evidence of negligence or wrongdoing. The High Court overruled this using a very theoretical approach, claiming that the Bolam principle was outdated since it failed to protect the patients' rights in this situation, and reaffirming that the safety of the patient is considered top priority (Kirby,1995). Tabet v Gett (2010) HCA 240 CLR 537 was a case that challenge the issue of medical negligence with the scope of the duty of care that medical professionals should have towards their patients (Panetta-Mcgrath, 2010). The plaintiff sued when it was found that the defendant breached their duty of care by causing a delay in treatment, which prevented a better chance of achieving a positive outcome. However, Australian High Court overruled the “Loss of Chance” argument, states that in cases where the outcome of a procedure was uncertain, regardless of whether medical treatment was offered, then medical negligence does not apply. Specifically, “the plaintiff must satisfy the balance of probabilities by showing that they had a greater than 50% chance of obtaining a better outcome”, if the medical procedure had not occurred (Sarah Alexandra Holloway).
There are a few minor issues with expression, grammar, and punctuation in this paragraph. Here are the corrections:
1. In the sentence "This principle states that if a practice is considered consistent with the guidelines of medical professionals, there is no evidence of negligence or wrongdoing," the word "is" should be changed to "isn't" to achieve correct negation.
2. In the sentence "The High Court overruled this using a very theoretical approach, claiming that the Bolam principle was outdated since it failed to protect the patients' rights in this situation, and reaffirming that the safety of the patient is considered top priority (Kirby,1995)," a comma should be placed after "outdated" to separate the two clauses.
3. In the sentence "Tabet v Gett (2010) HCA 240 CLR 537 was a case that challenge the issue of medical negligence with the scope of the duty of care that medical professionals should have towards their patients (Panetta-Mcgrath, 2010)," the word "challenge" should be changed to "challenged" to achieve correct past tense.
4. In the sentence "However, Australian High Court overruled the 'Loss of Chance' argument, states that in cases where the outcome of a procedure was uncertain, regardless of whether medical treatment was offered, then medical negligence does not apply," the word "states" should be changed to "stating" to make it consistent with the past tense of "overruled."
5. In the citation "(Sarah Alexandra Holloway)," the comma after the closing parenthesis should be changed to a period, as it is the end of the sentence.
Here is the revised paragraph:
From the doctor’s viewpoint, medical negligence is a scenario that is difficult to prove and is too reliant on hypothetical situations. In the case of Roger v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479, the application of the Bolam principle, often used to determine medical negligence in the United Kingdom, could potentially have led to a judgment that the doctor was not negligent (GM&P, 2016). This principle states that if a practice is considered consistent with the guidelines of medical professionals, there isn't any evidence of negligence or wrongdoing. The High Court overruled this, using a very theoretical approach, claiming that the Bolam principle was outdated since it failed to protect the patients' rights in this situation, and reaffirming that the safety of the patient is considered top priority (Kirby, 1995). Tabet v Gett (2010) HCA 240 CLR 537 was a case that challenged the issue of medical negligence with the scope of the duty of care that medical professionals should have towards their patients (Panetta-Mcgrath, 2010). The plaintiff sued when it was found that the defendant breached their duty of care by causing a delay in treatment, which prevented a better chance of achieving a positive outcome. However, the Australian High Court overruled the "Loss of Chance" argument, stating that in cases where the outcome of a procedure was uncertain, regardless of whether medical treatment was offered, then medical negligence does not apply. Specifically, "the plaintiff must satisfy the balance of probabilities by showing that they had a greater than 50% chance of obtaining a better outcome," if the medical procedure had not occurred (Sarah Alexandra Holloway).
There are a few grammar and punctuation errors in the paragraph. Here is the corrected version:
From the doctor’s viewpoint, medical negligence is a scenario that is difficult to prove and is too reliant on hypothetical situations. In the case of Roger v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479, the application of the Bolam principle, often used to determine medical negligence in the United Kingdom, could have potentially led to a judgment that the doctor was not negligent (GM&P, 2016). This principle states that if a practice is considered consistent with the guidelines of medical professionals, there is no evidence of negligence or wrongdoing. The High Court overruled this using a very theoretical approach, claiming that the Bolam principle was outdated since it failed to protect the patients' rights in this situation and reaffirming that the safety of the patient is considered a top priority (Kirby, 1995). Tabet v Gett (2010) HCA 240 CLR 537 was a case that challenged the issue of medical negligence with the scope of the duty of care that medical professionals should have towards their patients (Panetta-Mcgrath, 2010). The plaintiff sued when it was found that the defendant breached their duty of care by causing a delay in treatment, which prevented a better chance of achieving a positive outcome. However, the Australian High Court overruled the “Loss of Chance” argument, stating that in cases where the outcome of a procedure was uncertain, regardless of whether medical treatment was offered, then medical negligence does not apply. Specifically, “the plaintiff must satisfy the balance of probabilities by showing that they had a greater than 50% chance of obtaining a better outcome" if the medical procedure had not occurred (Sarah Alexandra Holloway).