学生购买返程票时在票面注明“返”字样。（）

初孕妇，26岁，孕39周，宫口开全2小时。检查：先露高位+2，宫缩较前减弱，胎膜己破，胎心128次／分，产妇一般情况较好。此时应采取哪一种分娩方式最好（）。

A.胎头吸引术

B.会阴侧切+胎头吸引

C.剖宫产

D.会阴侧切+产钳术

E.待其自然分娩

皮肤或黏膜的表皮内鳞状细胞癌称为（）。

A.Boewn病

B.Paget病

C.Kaposi肉瘤

D.基底细胞癌

E.恶性黑素瘤

(4分) A为烃，B为烃的含氧衍生物，取等物质的量的A和B混合物共0.5mol在1.5mol的氧气中完全燃烧，生成1molCO₂和1.5molH₂O。另取一定量的A和B完全燃烧，将其以任意物质的量比混合，且物质的量之和一定试通过计算回答：

（1）若生成CO₂和水的物质的量一定，则A和B的分子式分别是         （任写一组）

（2）若耗氧量一定，则A和B的分子式分别是                   （任写一组）

A.条件（1）充分，但条件（2）不充分.

B.条件（2）充分，但条件（1）不充分.

C.条件（1）和（2）单独都不充分，但条件（1）和条件（2）联合起来充分.

D.条件（1）充分，条件（2）也充分.

E.条件（1）和（2）单独都不充分，条件（1）和条件（2）联合起来也不充分.

平面上两条不同直线l₁，l₂平行．
(1)l₁，l₂都垂直于直线l；
(2)l₁上有两个点P，Q到l₂距离相等。

Euthanasia is clearly a deliberate and intentional aspect of a killing. Taking a human life, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be.

Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment. The American Medical Association’s policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die--if one is permissible, then so is the other.

Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant. The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched."

Is my argument really irrelevant I don’t see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible.

But traditionalists like professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia--the direct killing of patients--is not morally permissible; so, if my argument is sound, their view must be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched. "

However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary.

It seems that the writer is most concerned about（）

A. the interpretations of euthanasia

B.the sufferings of the dying

C. the effects of medical treatments

D. the traditional view on death