单选题
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 pro- posed 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 circum- stances. 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 compos mentis, 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 extends 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.
单选题
It will be a relief over the death of a friend or a relative if the friend or relative dies from ______.
【答案解析】细节题。第三段最后一句用同位语对Advance Directive这个词进行了解释，指出它是一种 Living Wills(生前遗嘱)，第四段又对其内容、形式进行了说明，因此答案是[C]。
单选题
A doctor will be guilty of murder if he ______.
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】细节题。答案信息对应于第五段中后一句：A doctor...be guilty of murder or aiding and abetting suicide，即法律规定，采用主动安乐死措施帮助病人结束生命的医生是有罪的，与[C]一致。
单选题
According to traditional English law ______.
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】细节题。答案对应于文章最后一段第一句：... is entitled to refuse any medical treatment，即英国法律规定，心智健全的成人病患有权拒绝治疗。
单选题
Which of the following best summarizes the author's attitude toward the Advance Directive?
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】分析推理题。本题要求推断作者对待所说明事物的态度。文章最后一句指出：There is no reason...any differently，这一句实际上就表明了作者的态度：英国法庭对待预先写好的遗嘱(指Advance Directive)没有理由(与前文所说的病人有权拒绝治疗、终止生命)有什么不同。由于病人拒绝治疗是英国法律所允许的，因此作者指的就是英国法律也应当允许Advance Directive这种形式的遗嘱，选[A]。