Questões de Inglês

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age

    “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options.

    “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.

    More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.

    In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.

    But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.

    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.

    However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.

    Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)

No trecho do quarto parágrafo “the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source”, a expressão sublinhada equivale, em português, a

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age

    “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options.

    “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.

    More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.

    In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.

    But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.

    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.

    However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.

    Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)

No terceiro parágrafo, o termo “expertise” está entre aspas para

Leia o texto para responder à questão.

 

The challenge of doctor-patient relations in the internet age

    “Let me do some research and I’ll get back to you,” my patient said. My patient, a 19-year-old student, had already taken time off from school because of her anxiety. I was her psychiatrist, with over two decades of experience treating university students, and had just explained my diagnostic impressions based on a lengthy evaluation. I’d recommended that she try a medicine I expected would help. I’d also laid out the risks and benefits of other treatment options.

    “Do you have additional questions I can answer?” I asked. I wanted to let her know that’s why I was there, to cull the research, to help make sense of it. “No, I like to go online and look for myself,” she said.

    More and more, I see students turning away from the expertise that a live person can offer and instead turning to the vast and somehow more objective-seeming “expertise” of the digital world.

    In an age when journalism we don’t like can be dismissed as “fake news,” suggesting that the information we do like is most credible, regardless of its source, it’s not hard to understand why young people do this. The medical profession itself, under managed care, has played a role as well, providing less time for doctor-patient interactions and undermining the chances that a personal relationship and trust can develop. Under the guise of efficiency, medical test results are now often released directly to patients, sometimes before or even without the benefit of any interpretation.

    But there’s danger in trusting data over people, as there is in thinking the expertise of all people is equivalent. When it comes to health, digital natives may not be learning how to navigate effectively. And the consequences could be harmful.

    The availability of health data on the internet has its benefits. Online, for example, we can find explanations and solutions for symptoms we might be too embarrassed, or afraid, to discuss with another person, in person. Or, for lifethreatening diseases, we can locate clinical trials our doctors may not be aware of.

    However, there’s also a lot of misleading information, and information that’s simply untrue. The internet is full of people selling things – supplements, treatment regimens that have not been rigorously tested, even prescription medications – and making false promises that have not been scrutinized by regulatory agencies. Sometimes, as in the case of some websites that promote “an anorexic diet” for “aggressive” weight loss, the information can encourage life-threatening behavior.

    Years ago, when we discussed paternalism versus patient autonomy in my medical school ethics class, I came down strongly in favor of autonomy. Who but the patient could best decide what was right for him or her? But years of clinical – and personal – experience have taught me that information in and of itself is insufficient. Judgment is also indispensable, especially in complex situations, and the capacity for good judgment rests within people, not data sets.

(Doris Iarovici is a psychiatrist at Harvard University’s Counseling and Mental Health Services and the author of Mental Health Issues and the University Student. www.nytimes.com, 01.03.2018. Adaptado.)

Em seu texto, a autora

Read the text below.

According to the text,

Is bad luck the leading cause of cancer?

 

"Most cancers are caused by random mistakes in the genetic code when cells divide out of the blue, new research shows," the Daily Mail reports. But this is an oversimplification of research that looked at the role spontaneous random mutations play in the development of certain cancers.

It's well known that environmental and hereditary factors are the cause of many cancers. This study looked at the influence of a third factor: random genetic mutations that occur by chance as the body's cells repeatedly divide.

Researchers analysed cancer registry data from 69 countries worldwide to estimate the proportion of cancers that could be down to chance. They estimated just over a third of cancers worldwide could be down to chance mutations.

But the research has two key limitations, both of which the researchers openly acknowledge. First, these figures are only estimates and may not be accurate. And second, it would be a mistake to think cancers can only have one cause. A combination of all three factors – environmental, hereditary and luck – could all contribute towards a specific cancer risk.

(Source: www.nhs.uk)

It is possible to infer based on the text:

Read the text below

It is possible to state based on the text that