题目内容
Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. Of course, doctors don’t want to die ; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call "futile care" being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, "Promise me if you find me like this that you’ ll kill me. "How has it come to this—that doctors administer so much care that they wouldn’t want for themselves The simple, or not-so-simple, answer is this: patients, doctors, and the system.To see how patients play a role, imagine a scenario in which someone has lost consciousness and been admitted to an emergency room, and shocked and scared family members find themselves caught up in a maze of choices. When doctors ask if they want "everything" done, they answer yes. Then the nightmare begins. Feeding into the problem are unrealistic expectations of what doctors can accomplish. For example, many people think of CPR as a reliable lifesaver when, in fact, the results are usually poor.But of course it’s not just patients making these things happen. Doctors play an enabling role, too. The trouble is that even doctors who hate to administer futile care must find a way to address the wishes of patients and families. Imagine, once again, the emergency room with those grieving family members. They do not know the doctor. Establishing trust and confidence under such circumstances is a very delicate thing. People are prepared to think the doctor is acting out of base motives, trying to save time, or money, or effort, especially if the doctor is advising against further treatment.It’s easy to find fault with both doctors and patients in such stories, but in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment. In some unfortunate cases, doctors use the fee-for-service model to do everything they can, no matter how pointless, to make money. More commonly, though, doctors are fearful of litgation and do whatever they’re asked to avoid getting in trouble. In the passages that follows the last paragraph in the excerpt, the author is most likely to （）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Overall, belief in climate change has declined in the American public from roughly 75 percent to 55 percent between 2008 and 2011, with a recent rebound to 62 percent in the fall of 2011, the Brookings Institution survey finds. One noted reason for the rebound was personal experiences with warmer fall and winter temperatures. Though this kind of weather disruption is what climate scientists predict, they hesitate to place too much emphasis on one or two unusual seasons as a trend that changes public opinion. If next winter is more normal, the public may get the wrong impression about the dangers of climate change. Better for science to be more convincing. But there’s the rub. The American public is generally illiterate when it comes to science. And when American scientists complain about public illiteracy and lethargy on the vitally important subject of climate change, they also have themselves to blame. Generally, those who know the most about climate—and other important scientific fields—are locked up in their university ivory towers and conference rooms, speaking a language only they can understand. And they speak mostly to each other, not to the general public, policymakers, or business people—not to those who can actually make things happen. This is dangerous. We live in an age when scientific issues permeate our social, economic, and political culture. People must be educated about science and the scientific process if we are to make rational and informed decisions that affect our future. But instead, the relative absence of academics and academic scholarship in the public discourse creates a vacuum into which uninformed, wrong, and downright destructive viewpoints get voiced and take hold. Here’s a typical example. After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that "The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone... " In fact, the spill created extensive damage to wide ranging marine habitats as well as the Gulf Coast’s fishing and tourism industries. Long-term impacts are still unclear as scientists continue to monitor underwater plumes of dissolved oil that lie along the bottom. The fact is that today’s scientists are indeed lost to the academy. The failure begins with training in doctoral programs and continues through professional development where the constant immersion in academic seminars and journals serves to weaken scientists’ literacy in the language of public, economic, and political discourse. Scientists limit involvement in such "outside activities" because tenure and promotion are based primarily on publication in top-tier academic journals. "In my view, few contemporary issues warrant critical analysis by problem-focused researchers more than environmental sustainability, and particularly climate change. Universities need to train emerging and seasoned scholars in the skills of communicating science to the public and policy makers. We need to develop a new generation of scholars for whom the role of public intellectual is not an anachronism. Without such changes, the climate change debate devolves into a " logic schism" where the ideological extremes dominate the conversation and the space for solutions disappears into a rhetorical shouting match. In the author’s opinion, in order to enhance public’s awareness of climate change, the universities should ______.
"What About the Men" was the title of a Congressional briefing last week timed to (1) National Work and Family Month. "What about them " you may be (2) to yell.When Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute, first went out on the road to talk about her organization’s research into men’s work-family (3) , she received many such grumpy responses. Work-life experts laughed at her. Men are (4) , they said. They don’t have the right to complain. That was in 2008, before the Great Recession had hit. And this year, when Galinsky went out on the road again to talk about the results of a new study on male work-life conflict, she got a very (5) response. Some men became very (6) . They felt they didn’t have permission to feel (7) . "’This is what I think about each and every day, ’ " she recalled another man telling her. " ’ I didn’t realize that anyone else did, ’ " he said. "He thought he was alone, " Galinsky told me.(8) men are (9) work-family conflict isn’t new. Indeed, it’s been some time now that they—and younger men in particular—have been complaining of feeling the (10) in even greater numbers of women. Failure, (11) , uncertainty, the (12) that comes from spending a lifetime playing one game (13) , mid-way through, that the rules have suddenly changed, seem to have (14) the old categories of self, work and meaning for many men.Is this a bad thing I’d rather see it as a moment ripe (15) possibility. "A new beginning, " said Ellen Galinsky. After all, what men are starting to say sounds an awful lot like the conversational stirrings that (16) the way for the modern women’s movement.For some years now, sociologists have been tracking the patterns of what they call (17) in men and women’s lives. Mostly, when we think of this, we tend to focus (18) how they live, what they do, spend their time, whether they do or do not empty the dishwasher or care for their children. But what about how they feel Now that this final frontier is being breached, I wonder if we aren’t fully prepared to see more meaningful change in men’s—and women’s and families ’ —lives than ever before. That is: if we can (19) the change and act (20) it with courage, not fear. 9（）
以下杂质检查方法所用的试剂是 易炭化物检查
1972年在某地动工兴建一座年产48万吨尿素、30万吨合成氨的化肥厂，其单位产品的造价为：每吨尿素560～590元，又知该厂在建设时的总投资为28000万元，假定从1972～1994年每年平均工程造价指数为1.10，即每年递增10%。利用单位生产能力估算法分析，若在1994年开工兴建这样的一个厂需投资多少 (2)假如1994年开工兴建45万吨合成氨、80万吨尿素的工厂，合成氨的生产能力指数为 0.81，则需投资多少
微信支付 
支付宝支付