I realize a paper is a subjective writing, such that one either likes it or not, but I have to disagree with you. This paper takes the law on patents from soup to nuts, as it were and is NOT, at all, generic.
First, let me begin by explaining that often, in many legal writings, one begins be explaining the legal definition of a term because only by doing that can all understand what is or is not included in a word such as "crime". After all, just saying a crime is doing something that is against the law means nothing because then you have to ask "whose law" and who decides what is right or wrong. Therefore, the "introduction" here is used to get the definitions straight because a person cannot begin to discuss a legal topic without first assuring all people know what is being discussed.
Because the actions described in your scenario do NOT paint a "crime" under current US law (and as this is a paper about "future" possible laws/crimes, I also brougth in the "common" English definitions of the words to use them to compare and contrast to the "legal" definitions obtained from legal dictionaries. This serves to bring the discussion into where there may be a victim in a situation even where a "crime" (under the law) does not exist. It also brings the discussion to the fact that even where a legal "crime" may not occur, there may still be a victim, which allows the discussion of who suffers if the idea is taken out of the US. Also, it brings out the reality that simply because actions may not be illegal (as defined by a legal dictionary) there may still be a victim (as defined by the regular dictionary). This alone opens up a large area of discussion of whether there must be a "crime" (under legal dictionaries) for there to be a victim. This then takes us to the prevention of there being a victim through the lack of caution in the approval of an invention. As the doctor is basically threatening the nation to "accept it" or suffer the loss of it - he seems to be arguing for just the acceptance of it, regardless of any testing for hazards or other precautions.
Because inventions require careful screening (by FDA and other US agencies) the point about the failure to have any supervision of law over inventions is also brought out in that discussion (hence the long quote regarding FDA purpose). However, this need for public protection must be balanced against the national interest in new inventions (which is why I go into the discussion of the history and purpose of the Patent laws.
Then I discuss that if inventions were to be "screened" before inventors could go forward and build, the US would lose the entire purpose for having a Patent Office. All of the build up about the purpose of patents, the need to regulate patent development, culminates in explaining that even after all that, invention ideas should not be screened as it would violate legal tradition, purpose, and harm the development of new ideas. On short, the last paragraph provides a legal "proof" or logic argument that shows why it is that American law forbids such screening. It is NOT, in the least a simple declaration that its "unAmerican."
I can see that you may not have seen all of that in the writing, but please, do not say the work is generic and nothing but definitions were given. Moreover, I did not say screening was not American - I discussed the legal building of the patent office and explained (as is done by courts when attorneys and judges build legal arguments) that, therefore, the full weight of American law (its Constitution and the very laws passed by Congress that created the Patent system) do NOT allow or support invention screening.
If the paper alone did not help you understand these principles, then the explanation here should help bolster that presentation.