Both the passage and the lecture discuss the benefit of using electronic medical record.

Both the passage and the lecture discuss the benefit of using electronic medical record. The author suggests three benefits regarding replacing paper-based record, whereas the professor strongly disagrees with the author. She provides three counterclaims accordingly. To begin with, the reading brings up the point that the cost can be reduced because electronic medical record does not take space to store, and because it is easier for doctor to access, transfer, and duplicate the record. However, the professor refutes this point by arguing that the cost will not be reduced significantly. She further explains that event thought doctors use electronic records they still keep paper-based copy for legal reason, such as to keep the signature, or as an emergency back-up. In the second place, the scholar does not agree that the electronic medical record could reduce the human error. To be more specific, doctors still record and write in hand during the clinic. It is other staffs enter those records into the electronic system later for the doctors. As a result, it is possible the mistakes happen as in the past. Last but not least, the author suggests that the electronic data would aid value to research. Yet, the professor seriously challenges this argument and points out that the data are protected by the strict privacy law, so doctors cannot use them easily. For instance, patients have the right to block the usage of their personal data, and doctors must get permission from patient to access the data. However, the process of acquiring permission is long and complex. In consequence, the third reason is not plausible.