题目内容
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. According to the author, the views held by traditional orthodox Catholics on euthanasia is______
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan laid forth the intellectual basis for the likely continued aggressive easing in monetary policy in the weeks ahead in his semi-annual monetary policy report to Congress. The broader point in his prepared testimony is that the improved information and production controls evident in the new economyinduce companies to respond more quickly and in tandem to changes in their business. Mistakes are still made as is evidenced by the unwanted buildup of inventories at the end of last year, but any mistakes are more aggressively addressed than in the past, as is evidenced by manufacturers’ recent slashing of production. Moreover, the increasingly dramatic shifts in economic activity are particularly hard on confidence. Consumers and businesses literally freeze up due to the heightened uncertainty, and run from any perceived risks and curtail their spending and investment. If confidence deflates by enough, then a recession will ensue. Confidence has also been under extraordinary pressure in recent months due to surging energy prices and weaker stock prices. Higher energy bills have acted much like a tax increase, save the checks are largely being written to foreign energy producers. The lower stock prices are having a magnified impact due to the dramatic increase in stock wealth since the mid-1990s. The conduct of monetary policy must adjust to all of this, and thus respond more quickly and aggressively than in the past in an effort to shore up confidence. This explains the dramatic and unprecedented action (at least by a Greenspan-led Federal Reserve) to cut the federal funds rate target by 100 basis points in January: This also suggests that substantially more easing is on the way in the weeks ahead. Just when and by how much will depend on whether confidence continues to fall. The chairman made a point to note that policymakers have significant latitude to ease policy aggressively since inflation remains low and tame. Despite surging energy prices, inflation and inflation expectations remain contained. The Federal Reserve’s economic projections for this year provided as part of the testimony support this non-recessionary view. Real GDP is expected to grow by between 2% and 2. 5% between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of this year. Since this is below the economy’s potential growth, the jobless rate will rise to approximately 4. 5% by year’s end. Inflation will moderate somewhat in response. Recession risks are rising and as high as they have been since the last downturn almost a decade ago. The key buffer between a soft economy and a recessionary one is confidence, and today’s testimony by the Federal Reserve chairman clearly indicates that policymakers will be as aggressive as they need to be to ensure that confidence erodes no further. With just a bit of luck they will succeed. The best title for this passage may be______
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. In the opening paragraph, Tom Standage takes advantage of the strategy of______
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 is TRUE according to the passage
林甲为一水果摊摊主，一日其好友白某带着一外地务工姑娘郑某来水果摊买水果，林甲见郑某长得挺俊俏的，且知道白某是专门做人口拐卖“生意”的，就花了2000元钱把郑某买回家，欲让郑某与其弟林乙结婚。到家后，林甲让林乙将郑某骗到地下室，并将地下室的门反锁。期间，林甲帮助林乙强行与郑某发生性关系。林乙多次要求郑某与其结婚，郑某不允，欲自杀，被林乙阻止。林乙见这样拖下去也无望，就打算将郑某卖掉，并将自己的想法告诉林甲，林甲表示同意，并积极寻找买主。一日，趁林甲、林乙不在家，郑某欲逃脱，恰巧被回来的林乙发现，二人争执中林乙推了郑某一下，不料郑某因此心脏病突发死亡，林乙以为自己杀了人。后林甲把所有的事告诉了丈夫郭某，郭某打电话到乡派出所报案，并将林甲带到派出所去投案。林甲在供述自己的罪行过程中始终强调林乙没有过错，并供出了白某多次拐卖妇女、儿童的行为(后白某被抓获)。几日后，林乙欲去派出所自首，走到途中，遇见在派出所任副所长的亲戚包某，林乙告诉包某自己杀了人。包某说：“杀人要偿命，自首也要坐一辈子的牢，不如逃掉，逃过20年就没事了。”林乙听了包某的话就打消了自首的念头，后不知所踪。根据以上内容回答以下96～100题： 关于郑某的死亡，下列说法正确的有：
微信支付 
支付宝支付