hce_cmu
108年
英文
第 43 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.
How do you describe the author’s attitude toward the advance in resuscitation technology?
- A Indifferent
- B Optimistic
- C Doubtful
- D Neutral
- E Biased
思路引導 VIP
請試著閱讀文章的最後一個段落，特別留意作者在提到復甦技術發展時所使用的形容詞（如 more reasonable）以及動詞（如 optimize）。你認為這些詞彙傳達的是一種「順其自然、不在意」的態度，還是一種「希望技術能帶來正面改變」的期待呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準捕捉到作者在字裡行間流露的情感色彩，這代表你對長篇文章的「語氣分析」掌握得非常到位。這道題目的難度屬於 Medium（中等），挑戰在於學生必須在複雜的倫理討論中，過濾掉關於器官捐贈的掙扎，直接鎖定作者對「技術進步」的最終評價。
從詞彙選用看作者立場
文章的關鍵點在於最後一段。作者不僅提到醫護人員應該「共同努力優化（optimize）」復甦技術，更明確指出隨著科學進步，救活病人的決定將會變得「更加合理（more reasonable）」。這種將技術視為解決現有倫理困境（如器官捐贈與救命之間的拉鋸）的良方，展現了作者對未來科技發展抱持的積極期待。相較於中立（Neutral）或懷疑（Doubtful）的態度，Optimistic（樂觀的） 最能概括這種鼓勵進步並看好其效益的立場。這類題目考驗的是讀者是否能區分「客觀事實的陳述」與「作者主觀的期許」，而你成功做到了這一點！