题目内容
持续性房颤药物转复无效时，可以采取( )。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Your essay must be based on the instructions as follows: 1. Criticize their views 2. Justify your point of view
A few years ago, the rich world’s worry about economic interaction with developing countries was that the poor could not profit from it. So unbalanced were the terms of exchange between the North’s mighty industries and the South’s weakling sweatshops that trade between the two could be nothing more than exploitation of the one by the other; far from helping the poor countries, global integration would actually deepen their poverty. This fear has now given way to a pessimism that is equal and opposite--namely, that trade with the developing world will impoverish today’s rich countries. This new fear is more dangerous than-the old one. The earlier scare tacitly affirmed that the, industrial countries would suffer if they cut heir links with the third world. Starting from there, campaigning in the North to restrict trade with developing countries was going to be an uphill struggle. Those who oppose deeper economic integration now have a better platform. Vital interests oblige the rich countries to protect their industries from the new competition. Unlike its predecessor, this idea may sell. The new fear, like the old one, expresses the conviction that growth in one part of the world must somehow come at the expense of another. This is a deeply rooted prejudice, and plainly wrong. Very nearly all of the world is more prosperous now than it was 30 years ago. Growth has been a story of mutual advance. Lending useful support to this first error is a second--the idea that there is only so much work to go round. If new technologies make some jobs obsolete, or if an increase in the supply of cheap imports makes other jobs uneconomic ,the result must be a permanent rise in unemployment. Again, on a moment’s reflection, this is wrong. At the core of both errors is blindness to the adaptive power of a market economy.
Science writer Tom Standage draws apt parallels between the telegraph and the gem of late 20th-century technology, the Internet. Both systems grew out of the cutting edge science of their time. The telegraph’s land lines, underwater cables, and clicking gadgets reflected the 19th century’s research in electromagnetism. The Internet’s computers and high-speed connections reflect 20th-century computer science, information theory, and materials technology. But, while gizmos make a global network possible, it takes human cooperation to make it happen. Standage’s insight in this regard adds depth to his technological history. It underscores the relevance to our own time of the struggles of Samuel Morse in America, William Cooke in England, and other telegraph pioneers. They made the technology work efficiently, sold it to a skeptical public, and overcame national and international bureaucratic obstacles. The solutions they found smooth the Internet’s way today. Consider a couple of technical parallels. Telegrams were sent from one station to the next, where they were received and retransmitted until they reached their destination. Stations along the way were owned by different entities, including national governments. Internet data is sent from one server computer to another that receives and retransmits it until it reaches its destination. Again the computers have a variety of owners. Then there is the social impact. The Internet is changing the way we do business and communicate. It makes possible virtual communities for individuals scattered around the planet who share mutual interests. Yet important as this may turn out to be, it is affecting a world that was already well connected by radio, television, and other telecommunications. The Associated Press, Reuters, and other news services would have spread the Start report quickly without the Internet. In this respect, the global telegraph network was truly revolutionary. The unprecedented availability of global news in real time gave birth to the Associated Press and Reuters news services. It gave a global perspective to newspapers that had focused on local affairs. A provincialism that geographical isolation had forced on people for millennia was gone forever. Some prophets naively hailed this as a force for world peace. They predicted that tensions over cultural and ethnic differences would relax as people interacted in real time. Visionaries say the same about the Internet. While communications can smooth this process, they don’t automatically make it happen. As the experience of the past century and a half has shown, peace takes the will to make it work and sustained effort by all parties. Why is it that the global telegraph network truly revolutionary
Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taking a human life, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be. Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment The American Medical Association’s policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die --if one is permissible, then so is the other. Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched". Is my argument really irrelevant I don’ t see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if’ it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible. But traditionalists like professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia--the direct killing of patients--is not morally permissible; so, if thy argument is sound, their view must ,be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched". However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary. Which of the following best defines the word "omission" (Paragraph 6)
微信支付 
支付宝支付