...with the same consideration + relative clause

[JungKim]

It's taken from a hospital website in England:

We Ask That Our Patients:
treat our staff with the same consideration that you would expect to be treated yourself. Violent, abusive or intimidating behaviour of any kind will not be tolerated and will lead to immediate removal from the practice list.

I was wondering if the boldfaced portion should be changed into any one of these:

(1) ...with the same consideration that you would expect to be treated yourself with.
(2) ...with the same consideration you would expect to be treated yourself with.
(3) ...with the same consideration with which you would expect to be treated yourself.
(4) ...with the same consideration which you would expect to be treated yourself with.


Or is it better without the with as in the website?

 

[Thomas Tompion]

I think it's best as in the website.

There's no need to repeat the with.

 

[JungKim]

Thanks, TT.
Are any of my suggestions possible English?

 

[Thomas Tompion]

Thanks, TT.
Are any of my suggestions possible English?

I'd say not, JungKim, because of the repetition of with.

 

[JungKim]

What exactly is the antecedent of the relative pronoun "that" in the OP's sentence?
I thought it was "the same consideration" and that made me think that the additional "with" was needed in the relative clause. Apparently I was mistaken. But I'm not sure where I got this wrong. I could use some help.

 

[JungKim]

Please anyone answer my question in post #5.

Also, how about this one?
(5) ...with the same consideration you would expect to be treated yourself.

Does this work?

 

[JungKim]

With regard to the construction of the OP's (3), there is this usage of "which which" in a similar context:

If you cultivate the character trait of decency , it will ensure that you treat others with the same consideration with which you would like to be treated.

And that's from a book called Solider's Saga published in 2011.

The auther, Harry Garner, is a professional writer and seems to be an American.

Any thoughts?

 

[Cagey]

Usually I agree with Thomas Tompion. When <my view is different from his>, I suspect that I am missing some point of grammar. These are only my opinions. I could easily be mistaken:

I would prefer to repeat with.
This is the version I like best, but you have to change the position of 'with':

(1) We Ask That Our Patients: treat our staff with the same consideration that you would expect to be treated with yourself [with].
​

I believe this one is grammatical, but it sounds overly formal and awkward.

(3) ....with the same consideration with which you would expect to be treated yourself.
​

====
To my mind, ending the clause with 'with' is possible only if you omit 'yourself'.

(1) ...with the same consideration that you would expect to be treated with.
(2) ...with the same consideration you would expect to be treated with.
​

​

I don't think removing 'yourself' works for (4), because 'which' is used with a preposition, and the preposition is too far away in:

(4) ...with the same consideration which you would expect to be treated with. ​

As I said before, I am not sure I am right about this.

 

[Thomas Tompion]

For what it's worth, I think Cagey is right about this.

The problem, for me, is that I'd always write round such a problem - eg. show them the consideration we would ourselves like to be shown.

I find the repeated with very clumsy, but I think Cagey is right to say that it needs to be there, and I'm sorry to have been misleading earlier in the thread, JungKim.

 

[JungKim]

Thanks, guys, for answering my question.

TT, you might not have been misleading per se.

Here's a paragraph written by a judge named Richard A. Posner, published in The Yale Law Journal:

It seems more likely than not, assuming the accuracy of Wise's summary of the scientific evidence, that chimpanzees do have consciousness, or "minds," perhaps on the level of very small children or severely retarded adults. Having established this, Wise has only to remind us that small children and severely retarded adults have legal rights. To make the analogy even closer, he asks rhetorically whether, if a band of Neanderthals suddenly appeared in our midst, we would feel free to treat them with the same consideration that we treat, say, calves. The answer is no.

Note that there's no "with" after "calves".
Considering that The Yale Law Journal would have proofread the review rigorously, maybe there's more to this omitting "with" than meets the eye.
Any ideas?