The Palliative Medicine Article Rejection

[pfrutuosa]

Recently I've posted an article called The Palliative Medicine - a Challenge to Science and Humanity and it was rejected. The reason was that the article contains grammar errors. I´m not english so I belive it can contains lots of errors
If someone could help me finding them I would be very grateful...

The Palliative Medicine - a Challenge to Science and Humanity
Scientific advances that allow medical intervention go further every day, allied to the diffusion of mentality in favor of euthanasia that considers a terminal patient as a worthless life, reveals serious problems to medicine. Provoking death in a patient is so unethical as cause unnecessary suffering to intensive therapeutic treatments. However, the frontier between one and another of these procedures are sometimes very confusing. The middle way is the palliative medicine, a new specialty that needs large doses of science and humanity. The palliative medicine will become soon a specialty of high scientific quality. In fact, this specialty highlights two nuclear aspects of medical ethics: the physician respect by patients and recognition of the finite nature of the healing interventions of the physician.

[portions removed so the content does not get indexed]

The physician job is to heal, if it´s not possible to heal should relieve and if it´s not possible to relieve, to comfort. As incredible as it may seem, with the disproportional progress of medicine in relation of its humanization became more common to cure than relieve. Comfort then, forget it, although there are resources for both. Palliative medicines just give patients a way to die with some dignity.

[Lysis]

FYI, this forum is indexed by Google. You don't want to post the whole article, because it is now no longer unique. If you read this forum, CC expects you to proof and finding the errors is on you unless you pay someone to proof for you. I know some people will help out if you are struggling to find errors, but throwing something up you know has errors is...well...

[Celeste Stewart]

Hi,
Here are some suggestions:

Scientific advances that allow medical intervention go further every day, allied to the diffusion of mentality in favor of euthanasia that considers a terminal patient as a worthless life, reveals serious problems to medicine. ** This sentence needs to be broken down into two or more sentences. I don't understand "allied to the diffusion of mentality"

Provoking death in a patient is so unethical as **to** cause unnecessary suffering to intensive therapeutic treatments. However, the frontier between one and another of these procedures are ***is ---(the frontier is) ** sometimes very **omit very - not needed** confusing. The middle way *** word choice - middle way doesn't sound quite right*** is the ** omit the** palliative medicine, a new specialty that needs large doses of science and humanity. The *** omit the*** palliative medicine will become soon *** soon become (more natural sounding than become soon)*** a specialty of high scientific quality ** a little awkward, try rewording . In fact, this specialty highlights two nuclear aspects of medical ethics: the *** omit the** physician respect by patients (maybe "increased physician respect." Also, who's showing respect for whom? Physician for patients or patient respect for physicians?) and recognition of the finite nature of the healing interventions of the physician.

[portions removed so the content does not get indexed]

The physician **physician's** job is to heal (period,) If it´s not possible to heal **comma**, **to relieve;** **omit and** and if it´s not possible to relieve, to comfort. As incredible as it may seem, with the disproportional progress of medicine in relation of **to** its humanization**comma** **______________ **word needed, maybe it" became ** has become** more common to cure than relieve.

[BarryDavidson]

You might also consider rewriting from another perspective. You see, it might be shot down by the editors because it's basically an opinion (see editorial) piece.

Take the sentence beginning with, "Provoking death in a patient is so unethical," as an example. Basically, that can bee seen and argued in many ways. Now if you can provide some facts from various studies (something like, "Studies conducted in ________ show that 85% of practicing physicians see deliberately provoking death in a terminal patient is unethical," or something to that effect - just make sure to back it up with references.

Another example is, "in favor of euthanasia that considers a terminal patient as a worthless life, reveals serious problems to medicine." Would that be your opinion, that of those against euthanasia, or those who choose to die rather than suffer a prolonged, painful death?

Don't get me wrong, the article can probably be worded in such a way that it doesn't appear to be opinion based. I only offer this advice because I too have had articles, even some based solely on fact, rejected as being editorial-like.

[pfrutuosa]

thanks... you are helping me a lot.
I am writting a new article based on your suggestions...
I really hope they accept it this time!!!
Once again... thank you.