单项选择题

Text 2 Death comes to all,but some are more sure of its timing,and can make plans.Kate Granger,a 32-year-old doctor suffering from an incurable form ofsarcoma,has"very strong ambitions"for her last hours.She plans to avoid hospital emergency departments and die at her parents'house-music playing,candles glowing,family by her side.Surveys show that over two-thirds of Britons would like to die at home.Like Dr Granger,they want to be with family and free of pain.Yet hospital remains the most common place of death.For some this is unavoidable-not every disease has as clear a tuming point as cancer-but for others a lack of planning is to blame.The government,motivated by both compassion and thrift,wants to help.In death,at least,public wishes align neatly with the state's desire to save money.The NHS has calculated that if roughly one more patient per general practitioner died outside hospital each year,it would save 180m（$295m）.In 2008 it introduced a broad end-of-life care strategy,which sought to increase awareness of how people die while improving care.Since then the proportion of people dying at home or in care homes（the split is about half-and-halfbetween them）has increased,from 38%t0 44%.To steer patients away from hospitals,general practitioners have been encouraged to find their l%-those patients likely to die in the next year-and start talking about end-of-life care.This can be difficult for doctors."As a profession we view death as failure,"says Dr Granger.Yet when there is no cure to be had,planning for death can be therapeutic for patients.Those who do plan ahead are much more likely to have their wishes met.A growing number of patients have electronic"palliative-care co-ordination systems",which allow doctors to register personal preferences so that other care providers can follow them.A paramedic called to a patient's home would know of a do-not-resuscitate order,for example.One study showed that such systems increase the number of people dying in their homes.But savings for the govemment may mean costs for charities and ordinary folk.At the end of life it is not always clear who should pay for what.Although Britons can get ordinary health care without paying out of pocket,social care is means-tested.People must ofien shell out for carers or care homes-or look after the terminally ill themselves.Disputes crop up over trivial things,like responsibility for the cost of a patient's bath.A bill now trundling through Parliament would cap the cost of an individual's social care.Still,some want it to be free for those on end-of-life registries.That would cut into the government's savings-but allow more people to die as they want.
It is suggested in Paragraph 2 that most Britons want to die_____

A.inthehospital
B.freeofpain
C.atcarehome
D.outofhospital

<上一题目录下一题>

热门试题

单项选择题

On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.A.rizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justices — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power.” The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could.It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts ______.

A.violatedtheConstitution
B.stoodinfavorofthestates
C.supportedthefederalstatute
D.underminedthestates’interests

单项选择题

Text 1 Foreign cashiers and carers are now a fact oflife in Japan,especially in urban areas.The number of foreign workers has risen fast recently,t0 1.3m-some 2%of the workforce.Although visas that allow foreigners to settle in Japan are in theory mainly for highly skilled workers,in practice those with fewer skills may be admitted as students or trainees or as immigrants of Japanese extraction.In June the govemment announced that it would create a designated-skills visa in order to bring in 500,000 new workers by 2025,in agriculture,construction,hotels,nursing and shipbuilding.Japan has historically been cautious of admitting foreigners.It is one of the rich world's most homogenous countries:just 2%of residents are foreigners,compared with 4%in South Korea and 16%in France.The reasons for this attitude range from fears that outsiders will bring crime and damage societal practices,to concerns that Japanese residents will not be able to communicate properly with them.But Japan's population is old and getting smaller.To fill shortages in the labour force caused by the shrinking working-age population,govemment policy has focused on getting more women and old people into work,and using artificial intelligence.It has become apparent though that this is not enough;and businesses also want foreigners to help them remain competitive and to become more global.Indeed pressure from business is a big reason behind the change of tack.Over the past 20 years the number of workers under 30 has shrunk by a quarter.Another result of the greying population is the creation of ever more jobs,most notably as carers,that few Japanese want to do at the wages on offer.There are 60%more job vacancies than there are people looking for work.Industries such as agriculture and construction,as well as nursing,are increasingly dependent on foreigners.More exposure to foreigners,through a boom in tourism,has reassured Japanese,especially the young,that they can get along with them,too.Attracting the foreign workers Japan needs will not necessarily be easy.Language is a big barrier.Japanese-language abilities are not necessary for highly skilled workers wanting visas,but only a handful of companies work in English.Lowlier workers,who must pass a Japanese exam,are currallowed to bring their families and will not be able to under the designated-skills visa.Firms in which promotion is based on seniority rather than merit and in which long hours are the norm will find it hard to attract workers,too.Japan also needs to do more to help integrate foreigners.By accepting,for the most part,a small number of highly skilled workers,Japan has been able to get away without any inteUation policy.But as the number ofimmigrants rises,and especially as more low-skilled workers are admitted,this omission threatens to bring about some of the very concems that prompted the govemment to restrict immigration in the first place,such as ghettoisation and poverty.Which ofthe following is not the cause for Japan's cautiousness?

A.Socialsecurity
B.Languagedifferences
C.Workingpractices
D.Socialcustoms