12. “Though they soon will, patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records. As a doctor, I see two reasons for this. First, giving them access will be time-wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files. Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway.”
Which one of the following, if true, establishes that the doctor’s second reason does not cancel out the first?
(A) The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient’s records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them.
(B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor’s office staff.
(C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them.
(D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law.
(E) Some doctors have all allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors’ patients took no advantage of this policy.
how to figure this question?
what does the author mean by "if my experience is anything to go by"?作者: tongxun 时间: 2002-6-29 11:10
The ans. should be A, i think.
B, "lowest-paid member of a doctor’s office staff. " do not relate to both reasons in article.
C,"asked to see their medical records " against second reason.
D,"may charge patients for extra expenses" do not relate to both reasons in article as choice A does.
E," patients took no advantage of this policy" do not relate to both reasons in article as choice A does, and may be against choice B.作者: beer9 时间: 2002-7-1 13:46
