Is there any fluent expression, grammar or punctuation problem in this paragraph
From the analysis of the legal arguments and the viewpoints of relevant stakeholders above, legal alternatives offer individuals the choice of defining the boundaries of the law, and seek justice according to the Rule of Law. A major legal alternative, from the perspective of doctors, is the concept of proactive and reactive duty of the doctor, to warn the patient of risk. The “loss opportunity” argument is actually a legal concept that, a patient misses the possibility of better medical attention (Bird, n.d.). Moreover, this concept allows doctors to handle operations without the worry of being sued after the surgery (Tibballs, 2007). This is considered significant due to the fact that doctors can perform in their best condition without being interrupted, and are not obstructed by a low chance of success. “Information that a reasonable in the patient’s position would, make reasonably informed decision to undergo the treatment” (Queensland Government, 2020). Nevertheless, there are additional requirements that must be met to prove a loss of opportunity due to negligence, including the probability of recovery or survival in the underlying case, as well as the presence of identified causes and a high level of medical certainty.
There are a few minor grammar and punctuation errors in this paragraph. Here is the corrected version:
From the analysis of the legal arguments and the viewpoints of relevant stakeholders above, legal alternatives offer individuals the choice of defining the boundaries of the law and seeking justice according to the Rule of Law. A major legal alternative, from the perspective of doctors, is the concept of proactive and reactive duty of the doctor to warn the patient of risk. The "loss opportunity" argument is actually a legal concept in which a patient misses the possibility of better medical attention (Bird, n.d.). Moreover, this concept allows doctors to handle operations without the worry of being sued after the surgery (Tibballs, 2007). This is considered significant due to the fact that doctors can perform in their best condition without being interrupted and are not obstructed by a low chance of success. "Information that a reasonable person in the patient's position would make a reasonably informed decision to undergo the treatment" (Queensland Government, 2020). Nevertheless, there are additional requirements that must be met to prove a loss of opportunity due to negligence, including the probability of recovery or survival in the underlying case, as well as the presence of identified causes and a high level of medical certainty.
There are a few minor grammar and punctuation errors in the paragraph. Here is the corrected version:
From the analysis of the legal arguments and the viewpoints of relevant stakeholders above, legal alternatives offer individuals the choice of defining the boundaries of the law and seeking justice according to the Rule of Law. A major legal alternative, from the perspective of doctors, is the concept of proactive and reactive duty of the doctor to warn the patient of risk. The "loss opportunity" argument is actually a legal concept that a patient misses the possibility of better medical attention (Bird, n.d.). Moreover, this concept allows doctors to handle operations without the worry of being sued after the surgery (Tibballs, 2007). This is considered significant due to the fact that doctors can perform in their best condition without being interrupted and are not obstructed by a low chance of success. "Information that a reasonable person in the patient’s position would make a reasonably informed decision to undergo the treatment" (Queensland Government, 2020). Nevertheless, there are additional requirements that must be met to prove a loss of opportunity due to negligence, including the probability of recovery or survival in the underlying case, as well as the presence of identified causes and a high level of medical certainty.