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 my 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 The author’s purpose in writing this passage is（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
收容教育的对象是实施卖淫、嫖娼行为尚不够实行劳动教养的行为人。 ( )
《海牙公约》规定，（）属于危害国际民航安全的非法行为。
Directions:Read the following text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written clearly on ANSWER SHEET 2.In these times when market forces appear increasingly complicated and more volatile, it is all the more important to understand the professional jargon and terminology in the market place in order to be able to better make our investment and business decisions. Understanding key economic indicators will assist in the decision making process, providing a snapshot of the current situation and an insight into the future.(46) Each economic indicator tells us something about the economy or inflation. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is probably the most important report as it is the whole framework where other economic indicators fall under.There are also indicators that are broader tell us about the economy itself rather than the components, e. g. employment figures, leading indicators, money supply figures (M3). Inflation figures, Produce Price Index (PPI) and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) will, in short, inform us of the changes in wholesale prices, cost of consumer (retail) goods and services respectively.An indicator that is useful must be accurate, timely and reliable. It depends entirely on the integrity of the national statistical system responsible. It is vital to know the accurate components of an indicator. We have to be mindful of the limitation of these statistical figures too.Some indicators can be historic or extremely volatile, and therefore their values are reduced. It is better to compare the most recent data with earlier months, or take a moving average for the past 3, 6 or 12 months to smooth the data. It will tell us if there has been a significant change in trend and whether a new direction is under way.Timeliness of an indicator is also significant. (47) Although the reported figures are important, it is crucial to recognize that markets react more to the variance to the consensus forecast than to the absolute change in the indicator. (48) Markets do not like surprises and can be frustrated with volatility upon subsequent revisions to the numbers published, even though significance of the absolute number diminishes with each passing month.The Index of Leading Economic Indicators (L. E. I) in the US acts as an early warning system, telling us when the economy is about to change direction. (49) This composite index of 11 leading indicators has a good record of providing accurate forecasts. The total index performs better as a prediction tool than any of its parts. This monthly figure is available on the last business day of the month and has low volatility.(50) As a general rule, turning points in the economy are signaled by three consecutive months of L. E. I changes in the same direction. This leading indicator is like a lighthouse, giving the rest of the world economies a glimpse of the direction of the world’s largest economy. Although the reported figures are important, it is crucial to recognize that markets react more to the variance to the consensus forecast than to the absolute change in the indicator.
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 my 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（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付