2. 职称英语
  3. Among the most enduring of all horrors is the prospect of a slow, painful de

Among the most enduring of all horrors is the prospect of a slow, painful de

游客2025-04-06  36
问题     Among the most enduring of all horrors is the prospect of a slow, painful death. Those who witness the protracted terminal illness of a friend or relative often view the eventual death more as a relief than a tragedy.
    But to make life or death decisions on behalf of a dying person unable to communicate his or her wishes is to enter a moral and legal minefield. Could a doctor be sued for withholding treatment and allowing someone to die—or for not allowing him or her to die? Could it ever be lawful to withhold food and water?
    Legal moves are afoot which may settle these questions. Recently, a group on voluntary euthanasia proposed legislation to make documents known as "Advance Directives", or Living Wills, legally binding.
    An Advance Directive sets out the kind of medical treatment a person wishes to receive, or not receive, should he or she ever be in a condition that prevents them expressing those wishes. Such documents, much in vogue in the US and some EU countries, are becoming increasingly popular in Britain.
    A clear distinction must be drawn between actions requested by an Advance Directive, and active euthanasia, or "mercy killing". A doctor who took a positive step—such as giving a lethal injection—to help a patient die would, as the law stands, be guilty of murder or aiding and abetting suicide, depending on the circumstances.
    An Advance Directive, however, requests only passive euthanasia: the withholding of medical treatment aimed solely at sustaining the life of a patient who is terminally ill or a vegetable(in a vegetative state). The definition of medical treatment, in such circumstances, can include food and water.
    The enforceability of the Advance Directive stems from the notion, long accepted in English law, that a person who is both old enough to make an informed decision and composmentis, is entitled to refuse any medical treatment offered by a doctor, even if that refusal leads to the person’s death. A doctor who forces treatment on a patient against his or her wishes is, therefore, guilty of an assault. Case law exists in the US and several EU countries that extend this right of autonomy over one’s life to patients who write an Advance Directive refusing treatment and subsequently lose their reason. There is no reason, based on public policy or English case law, why an English court should treat previously made instructions any differently. [br] Which of the following best summarizes the author’s attitude toward the Advance Directive?
选项 A、It should be made legally binding in Britain.
B、It is morally questionable.
C、It is the same as mercy killing, and therefore should not be encouraged.
D、It runs counter to traditional English law.
答案 A
解析 以下哪种陈述最恰当地概括作者对事先指示的态度?应该让事先指示在英国具有法律约束力。根据第三段第二句，最近，一个主张自愿安乐死的团体建议立法，使“事先指示”或活遗嘱具有法律约束力。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/4028653.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)