Is there any fluent expression, grammar or punctuation problem in this paragraph
In order to ensure that just and equitable outcomes are provided for both doctors and patients, the “no-fault scheme” concept should be added when proving medical negligence, specifically amending Division 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD). This provision protects both parties from an extended litigation processes and allows for an expedited method of receiving compensation (Allsop et.al, 2009). Additionally, it holds individual healthcare providers responsible for clear cases of medical negligence, so it still deters doctors from having insufficient standard of care for patients. An additional advantage is that the government is also incentivised to allocate more resources to the healthcare system to produce better doctors, in order to reduce payouts to patients. This legal alternative is advised as the appropriate option amongst the two legal alternatives since it benefits both stakeholders, whereas the “loss of chance” argument primarily benefits doctors.
There are a few minor grammar and punctuation errors in the paragraph:
1. The phrase "should be added when proving medical negligence" should be revised to "should be added when proving medical negligence cases" to clarify that it applies to specific cases.
2. The phrase "so it still deters doctors from having insufficient standard of care for patients" should be revised to "thereby deterring doctors from providing insufficient standards of care for their patients" for better clarity and flow.
3. There is a missing comma after the phrase "benefits both stakeholders" in the sentence "This legal alternative is advised as the appropriate option amongst the two legal alternatives since it benefits both stakeholders, whereas the 'loss of chance' argument primarily benefits doctors."
Overall, the paragraph is mostly fluent and well-constructed, with only minor grammar and punctuation errors that can be easily fixed.
The paragraph appears to be well-written with no glaring expression, grammar, or punctuation problems. However, there are a few suggestions to enhance its clarity and readability:
1. Use quotation marks ("") instead of the double quotation mark (”) in the first sentence.
2. Consider using the word "by" before "amending Division 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD)" to indicate that the action is done through the amendment.
3. Instead of using "Allsop et.al, 2009" as a parenthetical citation, it would be better to provide a full citation or clarify who Allsop et al. are.
4. In the second sentence, revise "so it still deters doctors" to "which still deters doctors," for clearer language.
5. Instead of using "in order to reduce payouts to patients" in the third sentence, consider rephrasing it as "with the aim of reducing compensation payouts to patients."
6. In the last sentence, consider adding a comma after "option" for better readability.
Revised paragraph:
"In order to ensure that just and equitable outcomes are provided for both doctors and patients, the 'no-fault scheme' concept should be added by amending Division 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD). This provision protects both parties from extended litigation processes and allows for an expedited method of receiving compensation (Allsop et al., 2009). Additionally, it holds individual healthcare providers accountable for clear cases of medical negligence, which deters doctors from providing insufficient standard of care for patients. An additional advantage is that the government is also incentivized to allocate more resources to the healthcare system to produce better doctors, with the aim of reducing compensation payouts to patients. This legal alternative is advised as the appropriate option among the two legal alternatives since it benefits both stakeholders, whereas the 'loss of chance' argument primarily benefits doctors."