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. Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
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：
假如你是一名青少年社会工作者，你所在的社区是一个外来务工人员比较集中的社区，当地有很多适龄少年儿童，主要是外来务工人员子女。他们无法继续接受教育，常常在外面结队游荡，有的还沾染上了不良习气。请针对当地的这一状况，为你所在社区的外来务工人员子女拟订一份社区服务方案。
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： 本案中，下列哪些行为属于共同犯罪
In an effort to alleviate America’s increasing dependence on foreign oil and mitigate the worst effects of the current power crisis, Sens Frank Murkowski and John Breaux recently introduced the National Security Energy Act of 2001. While the bill contains a wide array of provisions, including everything from $ 1 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to the promotion of alternative fuel vehicles, the most controversial measure calls for opening a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and gas exploration. Liberals have already gone to war over the measure, charging that the potential resources in ANWR are negligible, that drilling in ANWR will have calamitous effects on the environment, and that any oil and gas that does come out of the area will arrive too late to solve any of the energy challenges consumers currently face. Yet such arguments simply don’ t stand up to the evidence. In the first place, no one actually knows how much oil is available. A 1998 survey by the U. S. Geological Survey estimated that there are between 4. 3 and 11.8 billion barrels of oil within the area that could be recovered. Even using the low estimate, this would still be enough to supply all of the energy needs of the United States for nearly two-thirds of a year, more than enough to merit further exploration into the ANWR environment. Moreover, there is little evidence that the environment will be harmed by such activity. The New York Times Science Section recently pointed out that innovations in technology and technique have greatly reduced the environmental "footprint" left by oil exploration in general, and Mr. Murkowski estimates that the development resulting from even a large ANWR oil field would cover only about three square miles. Since drilling began in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the herds of nearby caribou have greatly increased in size. Populations of nesting migratory birds have also gotten larger, "Over the past 20 years, the population of polar bears has remained exceedingly healthy," according to Mr. Murkowski. Helping the public is the primary reason for such drilling, even if the oil won’t reach the market for months after the first well is capped. In the long-term, oil from ANWR will help lower energy prices, alleviate long-term energy shortages and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. Currently, about 55 percent of America’s dally oil consumption of almost 20 million barrels comes from foreign sources--700, 000 from Iraq. According to the Department of Energy, this dependence could grow to 64 percent by 2020. By then, the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests, "fully 50 percent of estimated total global oil demand will be met from countries that pose a high risk of internal instability." America needs long-term solutions to its domestic energy needs and a smart start would be by exploring the resources at ANWR. The word "mitigate" (Paragraph 1) most probably means______
微信支付 
支付宝支付