2. 职称英语
  3. Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taki

Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taki

游客2025-05-04  38
问题     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. [br] Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?
选项 A、orthodox Catholics accept some kinds of killing in some circumstances.
B、Sullivan contends that there is difference between killing and letting die.
C、Modern medicine has assisted terminally ill patients in painless recovery.
D、The author doesn’t agree that he left the traditional position untouched.
答案 D
解析 题干问：“根据本文，下面哪项是正确的?”正确选项为D“作者并不认为他没有触及到传统对安乐死的立场”，作者在第3、4、5段都反复重申了这一观点。而选项A“正派天主教徒接受在一些情况下的某种杀死”，这是对原文第2自然段的曲解，他们只接受让病人自然死去，而不是去杀死病人。选项D“沙利文主张说在杀死和任其死亡之间是有区别的”，这和原文的信息相反。选项C“现代医学帮助垂危病人不痛苦地恢复”在文中没有提及。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/4061826.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)