题目内容
Joan Thomas: My husband has been reduced to the condition of a vegetable. Keeping him alive is meaningless now. I’m sure that if he could speak, he would beg us to switch off that oxygen machine. Why can’t he die of dignity Seeing him in this condition is causing us all great suffering. He has been in a coma for more than five months and is being kept alive by this machine which supplies him with oxygen. I have applied to a court for permission to have the machine switched off. I believe that he would rather have died peacefully than prolonged suffering for such a long time.Doctor Williams: Mr. Thomson is clinically alive, but he has absolutely no chance of recovery. His brain has been irreparably damaged by the coma. He could remain in this condition for years. Frankly speaking, that would benefit nobody. Hospital beds are scarce and medical staff are very busy. Hundreds of patients are waiting to be treated. I would be wrong to keep Mr. Thomson here and to refuse other patients who do have a chance of recovery. If his relatives request us to switch off the machine and if the court gives us the permission, we will stop all the treatment and allow him to die a natural and painless death.Doctor Fitzsim: I’m very surprised that Doctor Williams approves of Mrs. Thomas’s court application. A doctor’s duty is to save people’s life in whatever way he can. A doctor can never say definitely that his patient has no chance of recovery, however bad the situation may seem. I’ve seen patients in the same conditions suddenly regain consciousness after several months and become relatively healthy again. Human life is far too invaluable to put an end to it for the convenience of others. Medical science has made great progress over the last 20 years with the development of new drugs and operational techniques. Many diseases can now be cured and the lives of incurable patients may be prolonged.Graham Blanchard: Right now, there are thousands of incurable patients lying helplessly in bed, suffering pain and misery and wishing they could be allowed to die. But the doctors are afraid to help with their death for fear of legal or professional impact. I propose that doctors be allowed to discontinue treatment or administer lethal doses of painkillers if requested to do so by patients suffering from incurable diseases, or, in the case of Mr. Thomas, by their relatives. It’s time the law recognized the fact the people not only have a right to live in dignity, they also have the right to die in dignity too.Sidney Best: Any doctor who, with the intention of putting an end to the life of a patient, performs acts which lead to the death of patient, may be convicted of murder, under the present law. No court is empowered to give the right to do such acts and therefore Mrs. Thomson’s application is certain to be rejected. But if parliament passes Mr. Blanchard Bill, the situation will change drastically. Doctors will be given the right to kill patients on request, thus making helpless patients in all kinds of dangers. There might be conspiracy between doctors and potential heirs, spouses wishing to remarry, even potential receivers of organ transplants. The intention of this Bill many be good, but the possibilities of abuse are too numerous for it to be passed. Now match each of the persons (61 to 65) to the appropriate statement. Note: there are two extra statements. Statements[A] A doctor’s duty is to save his patient’s life not to end it.[B] Doctors should be given the right to decide whether to stop an incurable patient’s life.[C] My husband should be given the right to die of dignity.[D] It would be better for everyone that Mr. Thomas die a natural and painless death.[E] Doctors are afraid of mercy killing.[F] We should not pass the Bill for mercy killing, simply because it would put many patients’ lives in danger.[G] People have the right to die in dignity. Doctor Williams
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
61（）
"I ask you to drink to his health as a young man full the spirit of adventure who has lit up the world with a flash of courage." With these words, the British Minister of Air turned and raised his glass to the young man who sat beside him—a young man who, only a month before, was completely unknown. Yet, on that summer day in 1927 his name was on the world’s lips — Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly the Atlantic alone. He had been an air mail pilot, flying back and forth between Chicago and the city of St. Louis. Determined to win the ＄25,000 prize offered by a fellow American for the first flight from New York to Paris, Lindbergh had persuaded a group of St. Louis businessmen to finance the building of a special plane for him. The news that Lindbergh intended to fly the Atlantic alone was received with disbelief. The plane would never fly, people said. It would run out of fuel. It had only a single engine. Lloyds of London refused to insure the flight. Men called Lindbergh the "flying fool". But on May 20th, 1927, just after ten to eight in the morning, Lindbergh’s "Spirit of St. Louis", heavily laden with fuel, struggled into the air from a New York airfield. For several hours the weight of the petrol prevented the young pilot from flying more than a few feet above the wavetops. Night came and thick fog covered up the stars. Lindbergh flew steadily on, hoping that his course was the right one. He struggled to keep awake, checking the fuel all the time to keep his mind active. Through the next day the "Spirit of St. Louis" flew on over the seemingly limitless sea. Then a fishing boat appeared, and, an hour later, land. It was Ireland. Lindbergh set a compass course for Paris. By ten o’clock the lights of France’s capital were shining beneath him. Tired, unshaved, suddenly hungry, the "flying fool" came to Le Bourget airport, and landed in front of a huge crowd of wildly cheering people. After 34 hours of continuous piloting, the flight of 3,600 miles was over. Lindbergh was ______ by the British Minister of Air at the celebrating party.
Where do pesticides fit into the picture of environmental disease We have seen that they now pollute soil, water, and food, that they have the power to make our streams fishless and our gardens and woodlands silent and birdless. Man, however much he may like to (26) the Contrary, is part of nature. Can he (27) a pollution that is now so thoroughly (28) throughout our world We know that even single exposures to these (29) , if the amount is large enough, can cause extremely severe (30) . But this is not the major problem. The sudden illness of death of farmers, farm workers, and others (31) to sufficient quantities of pesticides are very sad and should not (32) . For the population as a (33) , we must be (34) concerned with the (35) effects of absorbing small amounts of the pesticides that (36) pollute our world. (37) public health officials have pointed out that the biological effects of chemicals are (38) over long periods of time, and that the danger to the (39) may depend on the sum of the exposures (40) throughout his lifetime. For these very reasons the danger is easily (41) It is human (42) to shake off what may seem to us a threat of future disaster. "Men are naturally most impressed by diseases which have obvious signs," says a wise (43) , Dr. Rene Dubos, "yet some of their worst enemies slowly (44) them (45) .\
"I ask you to drink to his health as a young man full the spirit of adventure who has lit up the world with a flash of courage." With these words, the British Minister of Air turned and raised his glass to the young man who sat beside him—a young man who, only a month before, was completely unknown. Yet, on that summer day in 1927 his name was on the world’s lips — Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly the Atlantic alone. He had been an air mail pilot, flying back and forth between Chicago and the city of St. Louis. Determined to win the ＄25,000 prize offered by a fellow American for the first flight from New York to Paris, Lindbergh had persuaded a group of St. Louis businessmen to finance the building of a special plane for him. The news that Lindbergh intended to fly the Atlantic alone was received with disbelief. The plane would never fly, people said. It would run out of fuel. It had only a single engine. Lloyds of London refused to insure the flight. Men called Lindbergh the "flying fool". But on May 20th, 1927, just after ten to eight in the morning, Lindbergh’s "Spirit of St. Louis", heavily laden with fuel, struggled into the air from a New York airfield. For several hours the weight of the petrol prevented the young pilot from flying more than a few feet above the wavetops. Night came and thick fog covered up the stars. Lindbergh flew steadily on, hoping that his course was the right one. He struggled to keep awake, checking the fuel all the time to keep his mind active. Through the next day the "Spirit of St. Louis" flew on over the seemingly limitless sea. Then a fishing boat appeared, and, an hour later, land. It was Ireland. Lindbergh set a compass course for Paris. By ten o’clock the lights of France’s capital were shining beneath him. Tired, unshaved, suddenly hungry, the "flying fool" came to Le Bourget airport, and landed in front of a huge crowd of wildly cheering people. After 34 hours of continuous piloting, the flight of 3,600 miles was over. Where in the passage does the author mention that the whole world was talking about that "flying fool"
微信支付 
支付宝支付