Recently, they has been a ton of debate as to adopt some electronic device to medical field.

Recently, they has been a ton of debate as to adopt some electronic device to medical field. More specifically, as regards to the passages, the writer puts forth the idea that medical informations about patients should be stored in computer database. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws, and addresses, in detail, the claims made in the reading text. First and foremost, the author of the reading passage states that using electronic records can reduce cost such as saving storage space, copying, faxing and so on costs of papers. The professor, however, in the same field stand in firm opposition to the claim. For example, she notes that eventhough doctors adopted to electroic ways to store medical histories of patients, they still keep paper copies, and do not throw out it in case of emerency. Thus, it won't reduce storage space. Next, a group of scholars, represented by the writer, think that electronic medical records allow doctors to prevent from making errors like illegible handwriting, improper transcription of data, and meedical records. Again, the speaker specifically addresses this claim by stating that doctors, who mostly adopted to electornic medical records, use pen and papers for notetaking. She goes on to say that they later put imformation on computers which means they still potentially can make so-called human errors. Finally, the author wraps his argument by positing that medical researchers can easily access to the medical records by electronic devices which was impossible and unconvienant before. The lecturer, nevertheless, finds issue with this claim by contending that hospitals and doctors have abide United States privacy law- keep patient data private. It will be still hard to get access and permission to medical records of patients.