2. 外语
  3. In June of 1836, Nathan Rothschild left London for Frankfurt to attend the wedding of his son Lionel to his niece (Lionel’s cous

In June of 1836, Nathan Rothschild left London for Frankfurt to attend the wedding of his son Lionel to his niece (Lionel’s cous

admin2017-04-20  17
问题     In June of 1836, Nathan Rothschild left London for Frankfurt to attend the wedding of his son Lionel to his niece (Lionel’s cousin Charlotte), and to discuss with his brothers the entry of Nathan’s children into the family business. Nathan was probably the richest man in the world, at least in liquid assets. He could, needless to say, afford whatever he pleased.
    Then 59 years old, Nathan was in good health if somewhat portly, a bundle of energy, untiring in his devotion to work and indomitable of temperament. When he left London, however, he was suffering from an inflammation on his lower back, toward the base of his spine. (A German physician diagnosed it as a boil, but it may have been an abscess.) In spite of medical treatment, this festered and grew painful. No matter: Nathan got up from his sickbed and attended the wedding. Had he been bedridden, the wedding would have been celebrated in the hotel. For all his suffering, Nathan continued to deal with business matters, with his wife taking dictation. Meanwhile the great Dr. Travers was summoned from London, and when he could not cure the problem, a leading German surgeon was called in, presumably to open and clean the wound. Nothing availed; the poison spread; and on 28 July 1836, Nathan died. We are told that the Rothschild pigeon post took the message back to London: He is dead.
    Nathan Rothschild died probably of staphylococcus or streptococcus septicemia—what used to be called blood poisoning. In the absence of more detailed information, it is hard to say whether the boil (abscess) killed him or secondary contamination from the surgeons’ knives. This was before the germ theory existed, hence before any notion of the importance of cleanliness. No bactericides then, much less antibiotics. And so the man who could buy anything died, of a routine infection easily cured today for anyone who could find his way to a doctor or a hospital, even a pharmacy.
    Medicine has made enormous strides since Nathan Rothschild’s time. But better, more efficacious medicine—the treatment of illness and repair of injury—is only part of the story. Much of the increased life expectancy of these years has come from gains in prevention, cleaner living rather than better medicine. Clean water and expeditious waste removal, plus improvements in personal cleanliness, have made all the difference. For a long time the great killer was gastrointestinal infection, transmitted from waste to hands to food to digestive tract; and this unseen but deadly enemy, ever present, was reinforced from time to time by epidemic microbes such as the vibrio of cholera. The best avenue of transmission was the common privy, where contact with wastes was fostered by want of paper for cleaning and lack of washable underclothing. Who lives in unwashed woolens—and woolens do not wash well—will itch and scratch. So hands were dirty, and the great mistake was failure to wash before eating. This was why those religious groups that prescribed washing—the Jews, the Muslims—had lower disease and death rates-, which did not always count to their advantage. People were easily persuaded that if fewer Jews died, it was because they had poisoned Christian wells.
    The answer was found, not in changed religious belief or doctrine, but in industrial innovation. The principal product of the new technology that we know as the Industrial Revolution was cheap, washable cotton; and along with it mass-produced soap made of vegetable oils. For the first time, the common man could afford underwear, once known as body linen because that was the washable fabric that the well-to-do wore next to their skin. He (or she) could wash with soap and even bathe, although too much bathing was seen as a sign of dirtiness. Why would clean people have to wash so often? No matter. Personal hygiene changed drastically, so that commoners of the late 19th and early 20th century often lived cleaner than the kings and queens of a century earlier.
    The third element in the decline of disease and death was better nutrition. This owed much to increases in food supply, even more to better, faster transport. Famines, often the product of local shortages, became rarer; diet grew more varied and richer in animal protein. These changes translated among other things into taller, stronger physiques. This was a much slower process than those medical and hygienic gains that could be instituted from above, in large part because it depended on habit and taste as well as income. As late as World War Ⅰ, the Turks who fought the British expeditionary force at Gallipoli were struck by the difference in height between the steak- and mutton- fed troops from Australia and New Zealand and the stunted youth of British mill towns. And anyone who follows immigrant populations from poor countries into rich will note that the children are taller and better knit than their parents.  
Which of the following statements is most consistent with the author’s attitude?
选项 A、Improvement in nutrition was easier to achieve than provision of better medicine and washable underclothing.
B、No doctor at that time could have saved the life of Nathan after the boil was found.
C、Effective medicine played a more important role in reducing disease and death than better hygiene and nutrition.
D、The industrial revolution has not improved the health of ordinary people as much as the rich.
答案B
解析 态度题。从第二段和第三段可知，家人为挽救内森的生命已经尽了当时一切可能的努力，但无奈医疗水平落后，没有杀菌消毒的药物可用，而且当时细菌理论尚未问世，医生自然想不到给手术刀消毒以防二次感染，故[B]的说法符合作者的观点。[A]正好与作者的观点相反：第六段称改善营养的过程比提高医疗和卫生水平要慢得多，故排除[A]；根据本文意思，医疗、卫生和营养同等重要，故[C]不符合作者观点；文中并未明确比较工业革命在改善普通人和富人的健康水平方面的差别，因此[D]也不符合作者观点。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/4EeMFFFM
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)