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  20
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] It can be inferred that Undis______.
选项 A、wants to cooperate with UNOS to solve organ shortage
B、thinks it is unfair to give an organ to a non-donor
C、wants to expand Lifesharers to include most Americans
D、admits something is wrong with the concept of Lifesharers
答案 B
解析 本题考查人物观点。第三段介绍安迪斯所创立的生命共享者理念背后的公平性：器官只捐献给其他成员；且为了防止白占便宜的人还规定，必须得在生病前180天签署捐献约定才能获得器官。末段倒数第二句中指出，安迪斯认为，把器官给非捐献者类似于“把头奖给一个没有买彩票的人”。可见，安迪斯在器官捐献上坚持公平原则。他认为让非器官捐献者获得器官违背了公平原则。[B]为正确选项。第三段末句只表示安迪斯认为UNOS应该采用Lifesharers的方法，但从中无法推知他希望和UNOS合作。[A]错误。[C]的干扰来自于第四段第二句中的he would need 85％ of Americans to sign on。但该句是为了说明Lifesharers有一定的局限性，(若要实现Undis的承诺，需要大部分美国人加入该系统，而在美国这是不大可能的)，并非说明Undis志在使大多数美国人加入该系统。第五段中安迪斯对Gordon教授的质疑进行辩护时，承认需要有一些例外，但没有信息表明他认为生命共享者概念本身存在问题。故[D]错误。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3262881.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)