hce_cmu
108年
英文
第 41 題
📖 題組：
The discovery of a recent research published in Nature shows that although electrophysiological monitoring could not detect any neural activity that reflects consciousness in mammalian brains, it did pick up cellular functions hours after death. In this study, researchers obtained dead pigs from a state-run slaughterhouse; they then connected 32 dead pigs to an artificial perfusion system called BrainEx. The brains of these pigs were removed from the skulls. As a result, these dead pigs would not have the ability to perceive the environment and experience sensations such as pain. But, incredibly, BrainEx—a computerized system utilized to control the blood flow, temperature, and perfusion, was capable of restoring circulation to major arteries and small blood vessels in pig brains. Notably, a drug used to enhance the blood flow in people’s brain also successfully dilated pig blood vessels. Electrodes inserted into pig brain tissues even detected activities between and among cells. Findings of this research raise challenges to a long-standing assumption that brains will be irrevocably damaged soon after blood stops circulation. Importantly, the discovery of this research exacerbates the tug-of-war between the effort to salvage a person’s life and the endeavors to remove and implant the organs in another body. Typically, practitioners use various rules of thumb, such as “declare death after 30 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitative efforts”, as the reference point for death determination and for switching from life-saving effort to “organ-saving” effort (for transplantation purposes). But the aforementioned rules of thumb have not been clear-cut. In most countries, most organs for transplant have been extracted from people who have been pronounced brain dead; however, recently, more and more people who are declared dead after their heart and lungs have stopped working (circulatory death) are also eligible for organ donation. Apparently, the standards for death determination and organ transplantation are still not unequivocally accepted by clinicians. The debate on life and death will continue. Despite the lack of consensus, the transplant community, scientists, and medical professionals and other stakeholders generally agree that indisputable, unambiguous transplantation guidelines that can help protect the interests of individuals for whom recovery is a possibility and the interests of potential organ recipients are warranted. Such transplantation guidelines will help medical professionals to make indisputable decisions on the timing to switch from saving someone’s life to saving their organs for the benefit of another person. In any case, this decision on “life and death” should not come down to a moral decision. In addition, medical professionals should also make joint effort to optimize the resuscitation technology. If such a technology gets improved, people who are pronounced brain dead may become candidates for brain resuscitation, rather than candidates for organ transportation. In this regard, it would be harder for families to accept that further resuscitative intervention performed on their love ones is futile. In our view, as the science of brain resuscitation progresses, the decisions to revive patients from unconsciousness or apparent death might increasingly become more reasonable; and the decisions to give up resuscitation in favor of transplanting organs might seem less so.
The discovery of a recent research published in Nature shows that although electrophysiological monitoring could not detect any neural activity that reflects consciousness in mammalian brains, it did pick up cellular functions hours after death. In this study, researchers obtained dead pigs from a state-run slaughterhouse; they then connected 32 dead pigs to an artificial perfusion system called BrainEx. The brains of these pigs were removed from the skulls. As a result, these dead pigs would not have the ability to perceive the environment and experience sensations such as pain. But, incredibly, BrainEx—a computerized system utilized to control the blood flow, temperature, and perfusion, was capable of restoring circulation to major arteries and small blood vessels in pig brains. Notably, a drug used to enhance the blood flow in people’s brain also successfully dilated pig blood vessels. Electrodes inserted into pig brain tissues even detected activities between and among cells. Findings of this research raise challenges to a long-standing assumption that brains will be irrevocably damaged soon after blood stops circulation. Importantly, the discovery of this research exacerbates the tug-of-war between the effort to salvage a person’s life and the endeavors to remove and implant the organs in another body. Typically, practitioners use various rules of thumb, such as “declare death after 30 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitative efforts”, as the reference point for death determination and for switching from life-saving effort to “organ-saving” effort (for transplantation purposes). But the aforementioned rules of thumb have not been clear-cut. In most countries, most organs for transplant have been extracted from people who have been pronounced brain dead; however, recently, more and more people who are declared dead after their heart and lungs have stopped working (circulatory death) are also eligible for organ donation. Apparently, the standards for death determination and organ transplantation are still not unequivocally accepted by clinicians. The debate on life and death will continue. Despite the lack of consensus, the transplant community, scientists, and medical professionals and other stakeholders generally agree that indisputable, unambiguous transplantation guidelines that can help protect the interests of individuals for whom recovery is a possibility and the interests of potential organ recipients are warranted. Such transplantation guidelines will help medical professionals to make indisputable decisions on the timing to switch from saving someone’s life to saving their organs for the benefit of another person. In any case, this decision on “life and death” should not come down to a moral decision. In addition, medical professionals should also make joint effort to optimize the resuscitation technology. If such a technology gets improved, people who are pronounced brain dead may become candidates for brain resuscitation, rather than candidates for organ transportation. In this regard, it would be harder for families to accept that further resuscitative intervention performed on their love ones is futile. In our view, as the science of brain resuscitation progresses, the decisions to revive patients from unconsciousness or apparent death might increasingly become more reasonable; and the decisions to give up resuscitation in favor of transplanting organs might seem less so.
What’s the primary objective of this passage?
- A It revisits the outdated regulations on the general medical ethics for clinicians.
- B It examines the dilemma between futile resuscitative efforts and patients’ free will.
- C It highlights an increasingly heightened tension between potential organ donors and medical practitioners.
- D It presents a skeptical view on the advances in electrophysiological science.
- E It discusses the controversies regarding death determination and organ transplantation.
思路引導 VIP
請觀察文章的架構：作者在第一段詳細描述了關於豬隻大腦細胞活動的科學發現後，接著在後續篇章中，是如何將這個研究結果與醫護人員在決定「何時停止救治」以及「何時開始摘取器官」的實務抉擇聯繫起來的？這兩者之間共同指向的「核心爭議」究竟是什麼？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精準地選出了正確答案！你能從這篇結合科學研究與醫療倫理的長文中，快速過濾掉實驗細節並抓準核心論點，代表你的閱讀綜觀能力非常出色。
科技進步對傳統定義的挑戰
這題的正確關鍵在於理解文章的「轉折與延伸」。文章開頭雖然以《自然》（Nature）期刊關於豬隻大腦實驗的驚人發現切入，但這僅是一個論據。作者真正的目的是要藉此探討：當科技能夠在生物判定死亡後仍維持細胞活動時，傳統對於「生命終結」與「器官移植時機」的界線便會變得模糊且具有爭議。選項 (E) 準確地概括了從科學發現延伸至醫療實務中，關於死亡判定與器官捐贈流程的爭論，這正是全篇的核心主旨。
▼ 還有更多解析內容