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.
The author is most critical of

A:the media. B:doctors. C:U.S. legislators. D:the British government.

Passage Four
In 1807 Noah Webster began his greatest work, An American Dictionary of the English Language. In preparing the work, he devoted ten years to the study of English and its relationship to other languages, and seven more years to the writing itself. Published in two volumes in 1828, An American Dictionary of the English Language has become the recognized authority (权威) for usage in the United States. Webster’s purpose in writing it was to show that the American language was developing distinct meanings, pronunciations, and spellings from those of British English. He is responsible for advancing simplified spelling forms: "develop" instead of the British form "develope"; "theater" and "center" instead of "theatre" and "centre"; "color" and "honor" instead of "colour" and "honour".

A:American forms B:British forms C:both American and British forms D:the mixture of American and British forms

It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip to Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said, "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me: like when I met Sandra, a 13-year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her. "
The Princess concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines. " And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.
But, back in London, her views were not shared by some members of the British government, which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack on the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon" (乱放炮的人).
The Princess responded by brushing aside the criticisms: "This is a distraction (干扰) we do not need. All I’m trying to do is help. "
Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess’s trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-informed about both the situation in Angola and the British government’s policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.
To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, claimed that the Princess’s views on landmines were not very different from government policy, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defense Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. "
For the Princess, the trip to this war torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her ,popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the chance to get closer to people and their problems.
Princess Diana paid a visit to Angola in 1997 ______.

A:to clarify the British government’s stand on landmines B:to establish her image as a friend of landmine victims C:to investigate the sufferings of landmine victims there D:to voice her support for a total ban of landmines

It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip to Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said, "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me: like when I met Sandra, a 13-year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her. "
The Princess concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines. " And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.
But, back in London, her views were not shared by some members of the British government, which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack on the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon" (乱放炮的人).
The Princess responded by brushing aside the criticisms: "This is a distraction (干扰) we do not need. All I’m trying to do is help. "
Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess’s trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-informed about both the situation in Angola and the British government’s policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.
To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, claimed that the Princess’s views on landmines were not very different from government policy, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defense Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. "
For the Princess, the trip to this war torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her ,popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the chance to get closer to people and their problems.
How did Diana respond to the criticisms

A:She made more appearances on TV. B:She paid no attention to them. C:She met the 13-year-old girl as planned. D:She launched an attack on the members of the British government.

It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip to Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said, "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me: like when I met Sandra, a 13-year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her. "
The Princess concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines. " And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.
But, back in London, her views were not shared by some members of the British government, which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack on the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon" (乱放炮的人).
The Princess responded by brushing aside the criticisms: "This is a distraction (干扰) we do not need. All I’m trying to do is help. "
Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess’s trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-informed about both the situation in Angola and the British government’s policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.
To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, claimed that the Princess’s views on landmines were not very different from government policy, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defense Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. "
For the Princess, the trip to this war torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her ,popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the chance to get closer to people and their problems.
What did Princess Diana think of her visit to Angola

A:It had caused embarrassment to the British government. B:It had greatly promoted her popularity. C:It had brought her closer to the ordinary people. D:It had affected her relations with the British government.

? ?下面有3篇短文，每篇短文后有5道题。请根据短文内容，为每题确定1个最佳选项。
{{B}}第一篇{{/B}}

A:It had caused embarrassment to the British government. B:It had greatly promoted her popularity. C:It had brought her closer to the ordinary people. D:It had affected her relations with the British government.

It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip to Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said, "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me: like when I met Sandra, a 13-year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her. "
The Princess concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines. " And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.
But, back in London, her views were not shared by some members of the British government, "which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack on the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon" (乱放炮的人).
The Princess responded by brushing aside the criticisms:"This is a distraction (干扰) we do not need. All I’m trying to do is help. "
Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess’s trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-informed about both the situation in Angola and the British government’s policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.
To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, claimed that the Princess’s views on landmines were not very different from government poliey, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defense Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. "
For the Princess, the trip to this war torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the ehance to get closer to people and their problems.
Princess Diana paid a visit to Angola in 1997______.

A:to clarify the British government’s stand on landmines B:to establish her image as a friend of landmine victims C:to investigate the sufferings of landmine victims there D:to voice her support for a total ban of landmines

It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip to Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said, "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me: like when I met Sandra, a 13-year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her. "
The Princess concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines. " And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.
But, back in London, her views were not shared by some members of the British government, "which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack on the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon" (乱放炮的人).
The Princess responded by brushing aside the criticisms:"This is a distraction (干扰) we do not need. All I’m trying to do is help. "
Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess’s trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-informed about both the situation in Angola and the British government’s policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.
To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, claimed that the Princess’s views on landmines were not very different from government poliey, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defense Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. "
For the Princess, the trip to this war torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the ehance to get closer to people and their problems.
How did Diana respond to the criticisms

A:She made more appearances on TV. B:She paid no attention to them. C:She met the 13-year-old girl as planned. D:She launched an attack on the members of the British government.

It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip to Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said, "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me: like when I met Sandra, a 13-year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her. "
The Princess concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines. " And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.
But, back in London, her views were not shared by some members of the British government, "which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack on the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon" (乱放炮的人).
The Princess responded by brushing aside the criticisms:"This is a distraction (干扰) we do not need. All I’m trying to do is help. "
Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess’s trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-informed about both the situation in Angola and the British government’s policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.
To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, claimed that the Princess’s views on landmines were not very different from government poliey, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defense Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. "
For the Princess, the trip to this war torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the ehance to get closer to people and their problems.
What did Princess Diana think of her visit to Angola

A:It had caused embarrassment to the British government. B:It had greatly promoted her popularity. C:It had brought her closer to the ordinary people. D:It had affected her relations with the British government.