2. 职称英语
  3. A Gated Community far Organ Donors Americans love a square

A Gated Community far Organ Donors Americans love a square

游客2023-12-11  21
问题                  A Gated Community far Organ Donors
    Americans love a square deal. The idea of the something for something, lies at the heart of our very sense of fairness. But there’s one area in which something for nothing is much closer to the rule, and it’s a transaction on which people’s very lives turn: organ donation.
    About 90% of Americans say they support organ donation, but only 30% have actually signed up to part with their parts after they die. The cost of such an all-take, no-give setup is high. Nearly 100, 000 patients in the U. S. are idling on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) matching list, waiting for a donor—and 18 a day will die waiting. Dave Undis thinks he has a good solution.
    Undis is the founder of the Nashville-based nonprofit Lifesharers. Lifesharers is a no-fee network of about 9, 000 members nationwide who have pledged to donate their organs when they die—but only to other members on the list. To avoid "freeloaders" as Undis calls them you must have signed up at least 180 days before you’re ill. Undis believes that as a proof of principle, Lifesharers shows how to fix the donor mess. If UNOS demanded what Lifesharers does and patients were required to register before they fell ill, he believes, the nation could essentially eliminate its organ shortage within three years.
    The idea of this ultimate in gated communities gives a lot of people pause. For one thing, Undis admits, for the system to do what he promises, he would need 85% of Americans to sign on, not likely in a country that rarely reaches that kind of near unanimity on anything. What’s more, Dr. Donald Landry, a nephrologist at Columbia University, points out there are people who consciously don’t register for organ donation for religious and other reasons, and it would be unfair to press them on their beliefs. Most folks, however, hesitate simply because they don’t want to face their own mortality, preferring to leave the post-mortem choice to their loved ones. Reciprocity would force the issue earlier, and despite his misgivings, Landry believes that’s a good thing. "You may never need a new kidney," he says, "but a lot of people aren’t going to risk not having that extra insurance just in case."
    One thing that might trip up the entire Lifesharers concept is that the idea behind it—fairness—can also argue against it. Elisa Gordon, a bioethics professor, notes that socioeconomics and health are linked, and some poor people may never be healthy enough to qualify as donors. Undis disagrees, arguing that there is now no criterion for becoming a donor beyond signing up at your local Department of Motor Vehicles. He concedes that some exceptions would have to be made, but he maintains that giving an organ to a non-donor is "like giving the lottery jackpot to someone who didn’t buy a ticket." Sadly, the odds of winning an organ under the current rules seem only slightly better. [br] Why would some people not take part in Undis’ scheme?
选项 A、They haven’t realized the significance of donating organs.
B、Organ donation is a forbidden subject in traditional beliefs.
C、They haven’t the courage to face their own death.
D、They are afraid of the risks for organ donation.
答案 C
解析 本题考查因果细节。第四段首句指出安迪斯所提出的捐献器官的设想令许多人犹豫。紧接着第四句指出其原因是人们不愿意面对自己的死亡。[C]符合文意。[A]文中没有提及。第三句指出由于宗教或一些其他原因，有些人不去捐献器官，但无法由此推知在所有的传统信仰中，器官捐献都是一个禁忌。故排除[B]。[D]的干扰来自于第四段末句中的risk。但该句中risk指“真到了需要器官时却没有器官可用”，用于解释人们参与“生命共享者”的必要性，而非指“捐献器官存在的风险”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3262879.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)