41. What’s the primary objective of this passage?
(A) It revisits the outdated regulations on the general medical ethics for clinicians.
(B) It examines the dilemma between futile resuscitative efforts and patients’ free will.
(C) It highlights an increasingly heightened tension between potential organ donors and medical practitioners.
(D) It presents a skeptical view on the advances in electrophysiological science.
(E) It discusses the controversies regarding death determination and organ transplantation.

題目更改如下：

     The discovery of a recent research published in Nature shows that although electrophysiological monitoring could not detect any neural activity that reflects consciousness in mammalian brains, it did pick up cellular functions hours after death. In this study, researchers obtained dead pigs from a state-run slaughterhouse; they then connected 32 dead pigs to an artificial perfusion system called BrainEx. The brains of these pigs were removed from the skulls. As a result, these dead pigs would not have the ability to perceive the environment and experience sensations such as pain. But, incredibly, BrainEx—a computerized system utilized to control the blood flow, temperature, and perfusion, was capable of restoring circulation to major arteries and small blood vessels in pig brains. Notably, a drug used to enhance the blood flow in people’s brain also successfully dilated pig blood vessels. Electrodes inserted into pig brain tissues even detected activities between and among cells. 

     Findings of this research raise challenges to a long-standing assumption that brains will be irrevocably damaged soon after blood stops circulation. Importantly, the discovery of this research exacerbates the tug-of-war between the effort to salvage a person’s life and the endeavors to remove and implant the organs in another body. Typically, practitioners use various rules of thumb, such as “declare death after 30 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitative efforts”, as the reference point for death determination and for switching from life-saving effort to “organ-saving” effort (for transplantation purposes). But the aforementioned rules of thumb have not been clear-cut. In most countries, most organs for transplant have been extracted from people who have been pronounced brain dead; however, recently, more and more people who are declared dead after their heart and lungs have stopped working (circulatory death) are also eligible for organ donation. Apparently, the standards for death determination and organ transplantation are still not unequivocally accepted by clinicians.

    The debate on life and death will continue. Despite the lack of consensus, the transplant community, scientists, and medical professionals and other stakeholders generally agree that indisputable, unambiguous transplantation guidelines that can help protect the interests of individuals for whom recovery is a possibility and the interests of potential organ recipients are warranted. Such transplantation guidelines will help medical professionals to make indisputable decisions on the timing to switch from saving someone’s life to saving their organs for the benefit of another person. In any case, this decision on “life and death” should not come down to a moral decision.

     In addition, medical professionals should also make joint effort to optimize the resuscitation technology. If such a technology gets improved, people who are pronounced brain dead may become candidates for brain resuscitation, rather than candidates for organ transportation. In this regard, it would be harder for families to accept that further resuscitative intervention performed on their love ones is futile. In our view, as the science of brain resuscitation progresses, the decisions to revive patients from unconsciousness or apparent death might increasingly become more reasonable; and the decisions to give up resuscitation in favor of transplanting organs might seem less so.