单选题 BBC's Casualty programme on Saturday evening gave viewers a vote as to which of two patients should benefit from a donation. But it failed to tell us that we would not need to make so many life-and-death decisions if we got to grip with the chronic organ shortage. Being pussyfooting around in its approach to dead bodies, the Government is giving a kicking to some of the most vulnerable in our society. One depressing consequence of this is that a significant number of those on the waiting list take off to foreign countries to purchase an organ from a living third-world donor, something that is forbidden in the United Kingdom. The poor have no option but to wait in vain.
The Human Tissue Authority's position on the retention of body parts for medical research after a post-mortem examination is equally flawed. The new consent forms could have been drafted by some evil person seeking to stop the precious flow of human tissue into the pathological laboratory. The forms are so lengthy that doctors rarely have time to complete them and, even if they try, the wording is so graphic that relatives tend to leg it before signing. In consequence, the number of post mortems has fallen quickly.
The wider worry is that the moral shortsightedness evident in the Human Tissue Act seems to infect every facet of the contemporary debate on medical ethics. Take the timid approach to embryonic stem cell research. The United States, for example, refuses government funding to scientists who wish to carry out potentially ground-breaking research on the surplus embryos created by IVF treatment.
Senators profess to be worried that embryonic research fails to respect the dignity of "potential persons". Rarely can such a vacuous concept have found its way into a debate claming to provide enlightenment. When is this "potential" supposed to kick in? In case you were wondering, these supposedly precious embryos are at the same stage of development as those that are routinely terminated by the Pill without anyone crying. Thankfully, the British Government has refused the position of the United States and operates one of the most liberal regimes in Europe, in which licences have been awarded to researchers to create embryos for medical research. It is possible that, in years to come, scientists will be able to grow organs in the lab and find cures for a range of debilitating diseases.
The fundamental problem with our approach to ethics is our inability to separate emotion from policy. The only factor that should enter our moral and legal deliberations is that of welfare, a concept that is meaningless when applied to entities that lack self-consciousness. Never forget that the research that we are so reluctant to conduct upon embryos and dead bodies is routinely carried out on living, pain-sensitive animals.

单选题 What has caused the chronic organ shortage?
A. a decrease in donation rates.
B. inefficient governmental policy.
C. illegal trade in human organs.
D. news media's indifference.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。根据题干定位到第一段。本段一开始提到英国广播公司的节目让观众投票决定哪个病人接受器官捐赠。接着第二句作者对此发表看法:这种节目没有告诉观众处理长期的器官缺乏问题的重要性。第三句提到政府在对待尸体的方式是顾虑重重,而这造成的结果是有钱人购买活体器官,穷人则无可奈何。由此可推出B项“政府无效的政策”是造成这种现象的原因。A项文中未提,C项是结果,仅从该段首句无从推知D项是否正确。
单选题 The expression "pussyfooting around" (Para. 1) might mean
A. unfair. B. hesitant.
C. secret. D. strict.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 含义题。根据题干定位到第一段。由上文可知,如果认真处理长期的器官缺乏问题,就不需要作出像英国广播公司节目中的那种生死抉择。pussyfooting around在第三句提到,是形容“政府对待死尸的方法”。下文则指出政府的这种方法带来的结果,即不同等待器官捐赠的人的做法。因此可推知,这种方法主要造成了器官短缺。B项“犹豫的,迟疑不决的”正确。
单选题 The moral shortsightedness is revealed in the fact that
A. the government has stopped the experiment on human tissue.
B. the donation consent forms are difficult to understand.
C. the Human Tissues Act is an obstacle to important medical research.
D. embryonic research shows disregard for human life.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。可用排除法解题。A项错在has stopped,文中只提到政府对人体组织没有给予足够的支持;B项在第二段提到,但它只能说明器官捐赠程序的复杂,不涉及道德领域。题干中的moral shortsightedness出现在第三段首句,该句指出,《人体组织法令》明显的道德短视影响了当前的医学伦理争论。胚胎干细胞研究方法小心翼翼,美国政府拒绝为科学家提供资助,进行具有潜在的突破性的研究。由此可知C项“《人体组织法令》是重要的医学研究的障碍”正确。D项是第四段首句中参议员反对胚胎研究提出的论点,不是道德短视的体现。
单选题 To which of the following is the author most likely to agree?
A. The rich and the poor are equal in the face of death.
B. More scientists are needed for the medical advancement.
C. There is a double standard in medical ethics.
D. The dead deserve the same attention as the living.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 推断题。从第三段开始全文都在讨论医学伦理道德问题。第四段第三句和第四句中,作者对议员的“潜在的人”的概念进行了批驳,指出这些想象上宝贵的胚胎与那些被避孕丸扼杀却没有任何人哭泣的生命处于同样的发展阶段。第五段末句作者指出,“不要忘记我们如此不愿进行的胚胎和尸体的研究正在一些活生生的、有疼痛知觉的动物上照常实行”。由此可知C项正确。第一段后半部分提到,由于捐赠的器官缺乏,穷人是更容易受打击的群体,他们除了等待别无选择。由此可排除A项。第三段和第四段末句提到科学家进行胚胎研究的重要性,现在的主要问题是道德短视使政府拒绝为科学家提供资助。因此B项并不是文中观点,该项中的scientists应换成funds。D项与作者观点相反。
单选题 The author is most critical of
A. the media. B. doctors.
C. U.S. legislators. D. the British government.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 推断题。A项只在第一段开始出现,是为了引出器官捐赠这个话题;B项出现在第二段,说明捐赠同意书的冗长让医生读来很费力:因此,作者对这两类人都没有给出明确的批评态度。第二段提到同意书的起草者,指出他可能“怀有恶意并试图阻止人体组织运往病理化验所”。第三段作者直接批评《人体组织法令》的道德短视,该法令的制定者必然也是作者所批判的;第四段首句提到“参议员”,作者对他的“潜在的人”的观点予以驳斥。由此可推出C项是作者最严厉批评的一类人。第四段倒数第二句提到“英国政府”,指出英国政府持有与美国不同的立场,允许科学家进行胚胎研究。因此作者对其是持肯定态度的。