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. 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
What would happen if consumers decided to simplify their lives and spend less on material goods and services This (1)_____ is taking on" a certain urgency as rates of economic growth continue to decelerate throughout the industrialized world, and (2)_____ millions of consumers appear to be (3)_____ for more frugal lifestyle. The Stanford Research Institute, which has done some of the most extensive work on the frugality phenomenon, (4)_____ that nearly five million American adults number" (5)_____ to and act on some but not all" of its basic tenets. The frugality phenomenon first achieved prominence as a middle-class (6)_____ of high consumption lifestyle in the industrial world during the 50"s and 60"s. In the Silent Revolution, Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michingan"s Institute of Social Research examined this (7)_____ in the United States and 10 Western European nations. He concluded that a change has taken place "from an (8)_____ emphasis on material well-being and physical security (9)_____ greater emphasis on the quality of life", that is, "a (10)_____ from materialism to postmaterialism". Inglehart calls the 60s the "fat year". Among their more visible trappings were the ragged blue jeans favored by the affluent young. Most of them (11)_____ from materialism; however, this was (12)_____ Comfortably fixed Americans were going (13)_____, (14)_____ making things last longer, sharing things with others, learning to do things for themselves and so on. But (15)_____ economically significant, it was hardly (16)_____ in a US Gross National Product climbing vigorously toward the $2 thousand billion mark (17)_____, as the frugality phenomenon matured—growing out of the soaring 80s and into the somber 90s—it seemed to undergo a (18)_____ transformation. American consumers continued to lose (19)_____ in materialism and were being joined by new converts who were (20)_____ frugality because of the darkening economic skies they saw ahead.
What would happen if consumers decided to simplify their lives and spend less on material goods and services This (1)_____ is taking on" a certain urgency as rates of economic growth continue to decelerate throughout the industrialized world, and (2)_____ millions of consumers appear to be (3)_____ for more frugal lifestyle. The Stanford Research Institute, which has done some of the most extensive work on the frugality phenomenon, (4)_____ that nearly five million American adults number" (5)_____ to and act on some but not all" of its basic tenets. The frugality phenomenon first achieved prominence as a middle-class (6)_____ of high consumption lifestyle in the industrial world during the 50"s and 60"s. In the Silent Revolution, Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michingan"s Institute of Social Research examined this (7)_____ in the United States and 10 Western European nations. He concluded that a change has taken place "from an (8)_____ emphasis on material well-being and physical security (9)_____ greater emphasis on the quality of life", that is, "a (10)_____ from materialism to postmaterialism". Inglehart calls the 60s the "fat year". Among their more visible trappings were the ragged blue jeans favored by the affluent young. Most of them (11)_____ from materialism; however, this was (12)_____ Comfortably fixed Americans were going (13)_____, (14)_____ making things last longer, sharing things with others, learning to do things for themselves and so on. But (15)_____ economically significant, it was hardly (16)_____ in a US Gross National Product climbing vigorously toward the $2 thousand billion mark (17)_____, as the frugality phenomenon matured—growing out of the soaring 80s and into the somber 90s—it seemed to undergo a (18)_____ transformation. American consumers continued to lose (19)_____ in materialism and were being joined by new converts who were (20)_____ frugality because of the darkening economic skies they saw ahead.
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. It seems that the writer is most concerned about ______.
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 best defines the word "omission" (Paragraph 6)
微信支付 
支付宝支付