高譯教育—NAATI考試英文題庫九.pdf

1 高譯教育高譯教育NAATINAATI 考試英文題庫（九）考試英文題庫（九） The birth of the future Childbirth is political. Anyone who has been to a birth class knows that. As they learn about the physical process that awaits them, pregnant women are encouraged to be strong, to feel the pain but rise above it, to resist intervention as long as possible. They and their supporters are told to make the birth joyous, an empowering celebration of life, and if a doctor offers pain relief, not to listen - not to weaken or fail. Doctors, on the other hand, see birth as potentially fraught with danger, a natural process, yes, but one which has to be controlled at every stage. Professional experience has taught them caution, and malpractice suits have reinforced the message. The two approaches - one fundamentally optimistic, the other pessimistic - are a world apart. Those same two views of childbirth are engaged in another tussle, this one over the status of midwifery. The Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, has said he will consider extending Medicare coverage to midwives offering services outside hospitals. The move would in effect give professional status to midwives, alongside other practitioners such as podiatrists. Midwives argue they could give better service to expectant mothers with low-risk pregnancies. At present almost all midwives are employed by hospitals, and are supervised by 2 doctors. A woman may see a series of different midwives during her pregnancy. The change would offer valuable continuity: women whose doctors agree to refer them could choose the midwife who will follow the progress of their pregnancy, attend the birth, and offer postnatal care. It is true most babies are delivered by midwives. Many mothers consult a private obstetrician throughout a pregnancy, only to find he or she is unable to attend the birth, leaving the delivery to whichever midwife is rostered on. But why would this change if a private midwife is engaged instead of an obstetrician? Neither profession has a monopoly on dedication or selflessness. Midwives also claim their different approach to birth encourages less medical intervention - fewer caesareans, fewer forceps births - and therefore lowers costs. They hint that doctors oppose their involvement as professionals because they are defending a lucrative monopoly. The word overservicing is murmured in hushed tones. Doctors, needless to say, reject the suggestion. This is an extension of the battle of the birth classes. In any case, both professions recognise, as they must, that there will always be difficult births where a doctors attendance is essential. New Zealand made a similar change in the 1990s, and now professional midwives handle seven births out of 10. (They manage fewer than one in 20 in Australia.) It may seem as if New Zealands mothers have voted 3 with their feet, but doctors claim the licensing of midwives simply had the effect of pricing general practitioners out of the market, and reducing choice. If it is found to increase womens ability to choose the style of birth they prefer, Mr Abbotts suggested move is worth supporting. But it must be implemented carefully to ensure choice is enhanced, not reduced - and monitored to see standards of care are maintained. Catalysts for change Various factors have been identified as possibly contributing to the decline in union membership. One factor has been the changes that have occurred in the composition of the labour force. Job growth has been greater in segments of the labour force (such as service industries and in part-time casual jobs) which have hitherto had relatively low levels of union membership. A previous study looking at trade union membership between 1986 and 1992 estimated that at least 30% of the decline in trade union membership over the period was because of such compositional factors (see Australian Social Trends 1994, Trends in trade union membership). The amalgamation of unions that took place in the 1990s may have also hastened the decline in union membership. The number of separate unions fell from 295 in June 1990 to 132 in June 1996, the date of the last union census. It has been suggested that the larger unions that have been 4 created from this amalgamation process may be less responsive to workplace level issues and to individual member input. As a consequence, the benefits of union membership may seem less valuable to individual workers. Another likely factor linked to the most recent decline is the nature of changes to the legislative framework for industrial relations made in the last decade. Since 1990, and the introduction of the Accord Mark VI between the Federal Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), there has been a move towards enterprise bargaining. This has been paralleled by a shift away from centralised wage negotiations where unions have played a large role in the past. The most recent changes, introduced through the Workplace Relations Act 1996, reduced the matters that could be covered by federal awards, and also provided for individual Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and collective agreements (Certified Agreements, or CAs) between employers and employees at particular workplaces. Other changes included revised provisions for unions right of entry to workplaces, restrictions on industrial action, and the banning of discriminatory action against non-unionists (removal of closed shops or compulsory unionism) and unionists. These institutional changes may have contributed to a perception amongst 5 workers that the role of trade unions has become less relevant and less effective. If so, the propensity to maintain membership of a trade union for existing members, or to join a trade union for new entrants to the labour force, would decrease. This would then be a factor contributing to declining trade union membership rates over the period to 1999. Croc blood tests in hunt for good health The infection-resistant crocodile may hold the key to fighting infections that have proved resistant to antibiotics, researchers say. Scientists have taken blood from about 50 crocodiles in the Northern Territory to analyse how their antibodies protect them from serious infection. “In the wild, crocodiles get some pretty nasty injuries. Their legs are ripped off and they get bitten in fights and they get a lot of very deep gashes,“ said Adam Britton, senior researcher at Wildlife Management International, which manages Darwins Crocodylus Park. “But in most cases, unless it was extremely serious, the animal is capable of repairing its injuries and theres no sign of infection. “If that were you and me, even if we got to medical treatment, we would probably still die of septicaemia (blood poisoning),“ he said. Dr Britton said a pilot study had isolated a protein in crocodile antibodies responsible for their resistance to infection. 6 Similar antibodies had been found in other animals but were much less powerful. The crocodile antibody was almost like the discovery of a whole new class of antibiotic, he said. “These crocodiles are fighting and getting injured in incredibly dirty water but they still never die as a result of infection.” Dr Britton said researchers were now using the results of the pilot study to identify the protein and assess whether it could be replicated for human use. DICTATORSHIPS HAVE WEAKNESSES Dictatorships often appear invulnerable. Intelligence agencies, police, military forces, prisons, concentration camps, and execution squads are controlled by a powerful few. A countrys finances, natural resources, and production capacities are often arbitrarily plundered by dictators and used to support the dictators will. In comparison, democratic opposition forces often appear extremely weak, ineffective, and powerless. That perception of invulnerability against powerlessness makes effective opposition unlikely. That is not the whole story, however. Among the weaknesses of dictatorships are the following: 1.The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups, and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn. 7 2.The requirements and effects of the regimes past policies will somewhat limit its present ability to adopt and implement conflicting policies. 3.The system may become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations. 4.Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks will not be easily available for new needs. 5.Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report accurate or complete information needed by the dictators to make decisions. 6.The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the system may become unstable. 7.If a strong ideology is present which influences ones view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual conditions and needs. 8.Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the systems policies and operation ineffective. 9.Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the dictatorship. 10.Intellectuals and students may become restless in response to c