楼主:普及频道 时间:2019年08月21日 18:33:58 点击:0 回复:0
It sounds like something from the future: a pair of skinny jeans that will charge your smartphone, simply by slipping the device into a sleek side pocket.这听起来像是未来的事情:一条紧身牛仔裤,可以给智能手机充电,你只需把手机轻轻放入时髦有型的牛仔裤侧边袋即可。But that day is here. Joe#39;s Jeans, a California-based fashion brand, has launched a line of jeans called #Hello, featuring a hidden pocket for a slim battery and power cord, which can connect to Apple iPhones. The new styles ;offer a sleek, stylish way to keep women charged and connected while on the go.;The jeans, are priced at 9, plus another for the custom battery.但这一天已经到来。Joe#39;s Jeans是一时尚品牌,总部在加利福尼亚,已经发布了#Hello系列牛仔裤,其主打特色为一个含轻薄电池和电线的暗袋,可以连接苹果iPhone手机。这一新时尚为女性提供了;高雅时尚的充电方式,可以在路上就连接上充电;。这一牛仔裤,定价189美元,定制电池板另需49美元。The brand isn#39;t the first to add charging capabilities to a piece of apparel. Many companies have launched purses and wallets that charge phones. Backpacks like the Powerbag and The North Face also let people charge their tablets or smartphones on the go, and some companies have moved beyond charging capabilities — equipping devices with GPS, speaker hookups and more.这可不是头一个在装上加充电功能的品牌。许多公司发布了可以供电话充电的男士和女士钱包,像Powerbag和The North Face这样的背包公司也让人们在路上就给平板电脑和智能手机充电。有些公司还不止有充电功能,给设备装上GPS、连接扬声器等等。Even our furniture might some day be able to give our phones some juice: IKEA recently said it#39;s creating a line of lamps, desks and tables that will charge phones and tablets, without wires.也许哪天连家具都会给我们的手机一点甜头尝尝:宜家最近称,正在创制一系列台灯、书桌和台子,将来可以不用电线就给手机和平板电脑充电。The future of fashion clearly includes #39;smart#39; functionality. The consumers have come to accept this level of functionality in clothing. Jeans capitalizing on this burge oning demand seems logical.未来的时尚显然包含“智能功能设计”。顾客已经开始接受衣的实用性水平;这一需求在不断增长,牛仔裤利用这点还是合乎情理的。 /201511/411845A short nap could reduce impulsive behavior and improve the ability to withstand frustration, a small study suggests.一项小型研究表明,午睡片刻可以减少冲动行为,改善人承受挫折的能力。Researchers studied 40 people aged 18 to 50. After three nights of normal sleep, the participants took computer-based tests of frustration tolerance — which consisted of trying to complete an impossible task — and completed questionnaires on sleepiness, mood and impulsivity. Then they were randomly assigned to take an hour’s nap, or to watch a nature . At the end of the process, they were tested again. The study appears in Personality and Individual Differences.研究人员招募了40名年龄在18岁至50岁之间的参与者,并让他们在正常睡眠三个晚上后,接受通过计算机进行的挫折承受力测试(包括试图完成一个不可能完成的任务),并回答有关睡意、情绪和冲动性的调查问卷。然后,参与者们被随机分为两组,一组午睡一个小时,另一组观看自然题材的纪录片。待上述程序都结束后,他们又再度接受了测试。该研究发表在《个性与个体差异》杂志(Personality and Individual Differences)上。Before the nap period, everyone spent about the same amount of time on the unsolvable task, but afterward nappers, who all reported having slept at least part of the time, spent significantly more time working at it than they had before their nap, while non-nappers gave up sooner. Nappers also rated their behavior as less impulsive than non-nappers.在午睡之前,每名参与者面对无法解决的任务时花的时间大致相同;但在午睡之后,报告在那一小时期间至少睡着了一会儿的所有参与者在任务上花的时间都比之前显著增加,而没有午睡的参与者则更快地选择了放弃。与没有午睡的人相比,午睡组在评定自己的行为时普遍认为自己的冲动程度较低。The lead author, Jennifer R. Goldschmied, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan, acknowledged that the sample is small, involved mainly college students and may not be applicable to other populations. The sleep calculations also did not use electronic devices to precisely measure sleep and wakefulness.该研究的主要作者,密歇根大学(University of Michigan)的士生珍妮弗·R·戈德施米德(Jennifer R. Goldschmied)承认他们的样本较少,而且大部分都是在校大学生,因此可能并不适用于其他人群。在计算睡眠时也没有使用电子设备来精确测定参与者的睡眠和清醒状况。Still, she said, “These results are valuable and have put us on the route to understanding how we can utilize naps. Now people are starting to understand how powerful short bursts of sleep can be.”不过她还是认为“这些结果很有价值,它指引我们走上研究如何充分利用午睡的道路。现在人们已经开始认识到睡眠时的短脉冲有多么强大了”。 /201511/4084795.Euthanasia is properly regulated.5.安乐死得到合理监管Those who oppose euthanasia often cite the horror stories of patients being euthanized without consent or for unethical or impure reasons. Granted, the history of euthanasia is not without its fair share of horror stories and because of the gravity of its practice, it does need to be regulated. However, this is not reason enough to say that it cannot be properly regulated. Developed nations like the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia and have had only minor problems from its legalization. Any law or system can be abused, but that law and system can always be refined to prevent such abuse from happening. In the same way, it is possible to properly and effectively regulate euthanasia as various first world countries have done. More so because the process of euthanasia itself as it is being argued here, requires competent consent from the patient. It is important to consider the protection of both the physicians as well as the patients. The critical element in the regulation of euthanasia will be determining the line between what is considered to be euthanasia and what is considered to be murder.反对安乐死的人经常引用一些未经同意、或者由于不道德的原因而安乐死的病人的恐怖故事。诚然,安乐死的历史发展与骇人听闻的事件相随,而且,也因其操作关乎人命,所以的确需要规范安乐死。但是,这也并不能充分说明安乐死得到合理监管。一些发达国家,比如荷兰,已经将安乐死合法化,而且在合法化过程中只出现过一些小问题。任何法律和制度可以被滥用,但是法律和制度又总是能阻止此类滥用的出现。同时,就像众多第一世界国家所取得的成效一样,我们可以对安乐死进行合理有效的监管。由于安乐死本身就具有争议性,因此更多的监管措施需要取得病人的同意。同时,保护医生和病人也非常重要。安乐死监管中至关重要的一点是划清安乐死与谋杀的界限。4.Everyone has a right to a good death, therefore a good death must not be denied to those who want one.4.每个人都有安然离世的权利,所以对于那些希望安乐死的人来说,这种死法万不能被否决Nobody thinks of their death and desires it to be extremely painful or horrible. Rational human beings desire a good, dignified end to an ideally long and fruitful life. Circumstance, like luck, may not always be in your favor. It may not even be a terminal disease, which is so frequently used in pro-euthanasia arguments. It can be as savage as a freak accident or as simple as falling down the stairs to put you in a world of excruciating pain. While this is never to be wished on anyone, for those that have had the misfortune of being diagnosed with a terminal or painfully debilitating disease must have a choice out of it. Do we, who so desire a good death, have the right to judge others#39; state when we know nothing of it? Do we have the right to compare their experiences day by day, having experienced none of them, and say that they don#39;t deserve to die with dignity, the way they want to die? The answer is of course, no, we have no right to deny them the dignified death that we ourselves naturally desire. To do so would be selfish and we would effectively be imposing our own desires on that person, thereby restricting their freedom to self-determine even if it is in the most basic sense.没有人希望自己在极度痛苦中死去。凡是有理智的人都希望能有尊严地去往极乐世界。但是现实,比如意外状况,并不总是如你愿。病人所患的疾病可能不是绝症,这个论点经常被用来反驳安乐死的持者。或许是一场突如其来的车祸,或许是从楼梯上摔下来,都可能给你带来极度的痛苦。没有人希望这样的事发生在自己身上,那些被不幸诊断为绝症、或令人痛苦的虚损性疾病的人必须做出选择以摆脱痛苦。渴望安然离世的我们在什么都不知道的情况下是否有权力评判其他人的状况?我们是否有权力将他们每一天的病情进行比较,没有切身经历过他们的痛苦,就评判他们平静地离世是不值得的?当然是否定的,我们没有权力去否定他们有尊严的死法,而那种死法正是我们所希望的。这种做法是自私的,这是将我们自己的意愿强加在别人身上,所以即使是在最恶劣的情况下,我们也要保护每个人自我决定的自由。3.Euthanasia does not shorten lifespans by as much as is portrayed.3.安乐死并不如传闻般缩短人的寿命Many arguments opposing euthanasia are based on the premise that the patient#39;s life should be preserved because of the possibility of their recovery. Statistics however, paint a different picture. A Dutch survey conducted in 1991 showed that 86% of Euthanasia cases only shortened the life of the patient by a maximum of 1 week. The standard time it shortened their life was by a few hours only. This clearly shows that terminal illness is statistically terminal. Add in the fact that in the majority of these cases, the patients were in extreme agony, the numbers show you that terminally ill patients are using euthanasia to end the suffering where they would have had near impossible chances of recovery. This is not the same as the ideal painted by opponents of euthanasia, wherein the patient may have a chance to survive and make a miraculous recovery. It is because the numbers are so heavily indicative of euthanasia as an out for terminally ill patients in terrible agony that it must be allowed as an option to end their suffering.许多反对安乐死观点基于这样的前提:我们应该竭力挽救病人的生命,因为还有康复的机会。然而统计数据向我们展示了不一样的情况。1991年,荷兰一项调查显示,86%的安乐死病例最多只缩短了病人一星期的寿命。一般情况下,病人的寿命只缩短了几小时。这一数据清楚地显示了,绝症是致命的。事实上,大多数安乐死病例中,病人处于极度的痛苦中,数据显示身患绝症的病人用安乐死来结束他们几乎没有复原可能性的痛苦处境。安乐死反对者们假设的画面是病人有生还的机会,能奇迹般的恢复,而事实和他们的假设相反。因为这些数据如此有力地明,既然安乐死可以作为绝症病人摆脱痛苦的方式,那么,备受病魔折磨的病人应该享有是否选择安乐死的权利。2.Euthanasia saves lives.2.安乐死挽救生命Sound shocking? Consider this: a 2005 study of euthanasia in the Netherlands found that 0.4% of all euthanasia was done without consent from the patient. By the time this study was done, euthanasia had been legalized in the Netherlands. Now consider another study done in 1991 which was done before euthanasia was legalized which indicated that 0.8% of euthanasia done in the Netherlands was done without the patients consent. This shows that the legalization of euthanasia actually had the reverse of the expected effect and cut the unacceptable practice of no consent euthanasia in half. By these numbers, euthanasia has in fact saved lives since it now provides a protected and regulated framework with which doctors must first obtain explicit consent before conducting euthanasia. This same framework makes it more difficult and less grey for those seeking to perform euthanasia with impure or irresponsible intentions.看到标题,小伙伴们惊呆没?不妨先看以下实例:2005年一调查显示,在荷兰施行的安乐死病例中,有0.4%的安乐死未经患者本人同意。在该调查结束前,实施安乐死在荷兰已经合法化。再看1991年的另一项调查,那时,安乐死在荷兰尚未取得立法许可。调查结果显示,在实施过程中,有0.8%的安乐死执行未经患者本人同意。对比两个调查结果,我们可以看到安乐死合法后的结果和人们预想相反;且未经患者同意便实施安乐死的情况减半。以上数据说明,安乐死确实能挽救生命,因为合法后,实施安乐死可以受到法律保护,又为实施安乐死提供规范操作流程,医生在实施安乐死前,必须得到病人明确同意。安乐死操作流程规范化,借安乐死之名行谋杀之实的便无机可乘。1.The Hippocratic oath supports euthanasia.1.安乐死后盾——希波克拉底医派誓言Most people misinterpret the Hippocratic oath as being against euthanasia. The key element of the oath is that the physician must protect the wellbeing of their patient, hence the maxim ;do no harm; commonly interpreted to be a summation of the oath. Most interpretations of the ;harm; element are however taken to literally refer to the patient#39;s life. It can be argued that harm in this case refers to the wellbeing of the patient, which includes his life. However in cases where it is a choice between intense suffering or death, it can be argued that the physician is doing more harm to the patient by not allowing them to die. While this argument can go either way, updated interpretations of the Hippocratic oath do include a segment that concerns taking life as well as preserving it:很多人认为希波克拉底医派誓言与安乐死背道而驰。誓言的核心是医生必须尽力让病人康乐安宁,因此;禁止伤害;这一信条常被概括为希波克拉底医派誓言的总纲。对;伤害;一词的理解,多数人仅仅停留在字面表层含义,即对病人生命的伤害。但这里的;伤害;,指的无疑是;病人康乐安宁;这种状态,生命当然包含于其中。然而,遇到;选择继续忍受病痛的剧烈折磨;或;一死了之;这种情况,有一点可以肯定,比起让病人活着,医生不协助病人实施安乐死对其伤害更大。当然,这个问题仁者见仁,尚无定论。现代版的希波格拉底医派誓言的确包含讨论生死的文段:;Most especially must I t with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.; --Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University;尽我一生,尊生重死,凭良心履行医职。病人康复,永作最先思虑。若已尽全力,仍致病人丧生,我也要勇于承担责任,心存敬畏,勇敢面对。; ——1964年,由Tufts大学医学院院长Louis Lasagna 撰写From a philosophical aspect, man seems to have some pathological fear of death, so much so that he views intense suffering, until he is actually suffering himself, as preferable to death. Such fear of death tends to create a mythical status of death in our minds that we often forget that to die is also to exist as a human being. It is the finite nature of our lives brought about by the immovable and inevitable wall of death that gives every second of our time spent on this earth its most powerful purity. Death, like life exists as part of our cycle of human existence.从哲学角度看,一个人目睹太多人承受无尽的病痛折磨后,会对死亡产生近乎病态的恐惧,所以当他自己无法摆脱病痛折磨时,情愿选择一死了之。对死亡的恐惧,让死亡成为我们心中一个谜团,使我们忘了死和生一样,也是人类生活的一部分。正因死亡不可避免,才让人类有限生命里的每分每秒活得相当纯粹。生寄死归,乃人类存在的两种固有形式。审校:嘉珈Alison 来源:前十网 /201512/416640

ATLANTA — WHEN I learned last week about the discovery of an early human relative deep in a cave in South Africa, I had many questions. Obviously, they had dug up a fellow primate, but of what kind?亚特兰大——上周获悉在南非一个洞穴的深处发现了早期人类的亲属时,我有很多疑问。显然,他们又挖出了一种灵长目动物,但属于哪一类呢?The fabulous find, named Homo naledi, has rightly been celebrated for both the number of fossils and their completeness. It has australopithecine-like hips and an ape-size brain, yet its feet and teeth are typical of the genus Homo.凭借化石的数量和它们的完整性,被称作“纳勒迪人”(Homo naledi)的这个惊人发现的确应该庆祝。它的髋部像南方古猿,大脑体积和猿类的相当,但脚和牙齿却表现出了典型的人属特点。The mixed features of these prehistoric remains upset the received human origin story, according to which bipedalism ushered in technology, dietary change and high intelligence. Part of the new species’ physique lags behind this scenario, while another part is ahead. It is aptly called a mosaic species.这些史前骨骸表现出的复杂特征,搅乱了公认的人类起源理论。根据该理论,人类变成两条腿独立行走后迎来了技术、饮食变化和高智商。但这个新物种的身体部分停留在这一幕发生之前,另一部分却已经进化到了这一幕发生之后。叫它组合物种挺恰当的。We like the new better than the old, though, and treat every fossil as if it must fit somewhere on a timeline leading to the crown of creation. Chris Stringer, a prominent British paleoanthropologist who was not involved in the study, told B News: “What we are seeing is more and more species of creatures that suggests that nature was experimenting with how to evolve humans, thus giving rise to several different types of humanlike creatures originating in parallel in different parts of Africa.”但我们往往喜新厌旧,对待每一块化石都像是它必须要符合人类进化历程中的某个节点。未参与该研究的英国著名古人类学家克里斯·斯特林格(Chris Stringer)对B新闻(B News)表示:“我们看到,越来越多的动物物种表明,大自然是在尝试各种人类进化的方式,因而产生了几种不同类型的像人一样的动物,它们同时发源于非洲的不同地区。”This represents a shockingly teleological view, as if natural selection is seeking certain outcomes, which it is not. It doesn’t do so any more than a river seeks to reach the ocean.这就有了一种惊人的目的论色,仿佛自然选择是在追求某些结果。但其实不是这样。它和河流想要注入大海没什么不同。News reports spoke of a “new ancestor,” even a “new human species,” assuming a ladder heading our way, whereas what we are actually facing when we investigate our ancestry is a tangle of branches. There is no good reason to put Homo naledi on the branch that produced us. Nor does this make the discovery any less interesting.新闻报道谈到了“新祖先”,甚至“新人种”,假想出一条向着我们延伸的梯子,但在调查自己的起源时,我们实际面临的是一堆杂乱的分。我们没有充分的理由去把“纳勒迪人”放在那个产生了我们的分上。这丝毫不会减少这项发现的意义。Every species in our lineage tells us something about ourselves, because the hominoids (humans, apes and everything in between) are genetically extremely tight. We have had far less time to diverge than the members of many other animal families, like the equids (horses, zebras, donkeys) or canids (wolves, dogs, jackals). If it hadn’t been for the human ego, taxonomists would long ago have squeezed all hominoids into a single genus.人类谱系中的每一个物种,都会让我们更了解自己,因为人猿总科动物(人类、猿类和介于这两之间的一切物种)在基因方面是极为接近的。我们经历的分歧过程远短于很多其他动物科的成员,如马科动物(马、斑马、驴)和犬科动物(狼、、豺)。如果不是人类的自我意识,分类学家很久以前就把所有人猿总科动物归为一个属了。The standard story is that our ancestors first left the apes behind to become australopithecines, which grew more sophisticated and brainier to become us. But what if these stages were genetically mixed up? Some scientists have claimed early hybridization between human and ape DNA. Did our ancestors, after having split off, keep returning to the apes in the same way that today’s grizzlies and polar bears still interbreed occasionally?标准的说法是,我们的祖先先是从猿进化成了南方古猿,后来又变得更加复杂和聪明,最终变成了我们现在的样子。但如果这些阶段在基因上是混在一起的怎么办?一些科学家已经声称发现了早期的人猿DNA混合。脱离了猿后,我们的祖先是不断回到猿那里去,就像灰熊和北极熊至今还偶尔会杂交繁殖那样?Instead of looking forward to a glorious future, our lineage may have remained addicted to the hairy embrace of its progenitors. Other scientists, however, keep sex out of it and speak of incomplete lineage separation. Either way, our heritages are closely intertwined.我们的谱系没有憧憬美好未来,反而对祖先那毛茸茸的怀抱恋恋不舍。然而,其他一些科学家将性排除在外,转而说起了谱系划分的不完整。不管怎样,我们遗传下来的东西都是密切交织在一起的。The problem is that we keep assuming that there is a point at which we became human. This is about as unlikely as there being a precise wavelength at which the color spectrum turns from orange into red. The typical proposition of how this happened is that of a mental breakthrough — a miraculous spark — that made us radically different. But if we have learned anything from more than 50 years of research on chimpanzees and other intelligent animals, it is that the wall between human and animal cognition is like a Swiss cheese.问题是,我们一直假定自己是从某一时刻起开始成为人类的。但要找到这个点,就如同在光谱中找到从桔色变成红色的那个精确的波长,是不太可能的事。关于这种转变,有一种典型的理论,即是一种智力上的突破——灵光一闪的奇迹——使我们骤然改变。但以我们对黑猩猩和其他高智商动物进行的50多年的研究,至少有一个收获是,人的认知和动物的认知之间那堵墙,就像是一块瑞士奶酪。Apart from our language capacity, no uniqueness claim has survived unmodified for more than a decade since it was made. You name it — tool use, tool making, culture, food sharing, theory of mind, planning, empathy, inferential reasoning — it has all been observed in wild primates or, better yet, many of these capacities have been demonstrated in carefully controlled experiments.除了语言能力,没有哪个声称人类独具某项技能的论断会在提出十年后依然坚挺。你能想到的所有技能——使用工具、制造工具、形成文化、分享食物、心智理论、计划、共情、推理——都已经在野生灵长目动物身上观察到。更进一步,许多还可以在严格控制的动物实验中演示出来。We know, for example, that apes plan ahead. They carry tools over long distances to places where they use them, sometimes up to five different sticks and twigs to raid a bee nest or probe for underground ants. In the lab, they fabricate tools in anticipation of future use. Animals think without words, as do we most of the time.比如,我们知道猿类可以提前做计划。它们会携带工具长途跋涉到需要使用这些工具的地方,有时它们会用多达五种棍子和枝条来对付一个蜂巢,或翻找地下的蚂蚁。在实验室里,它们会制造工具以备将来使用。动物会不经由语言思考,就像我们大多数时候那样。Undeterred by Homo naledi’s relatively small brain, however, the research team sought to stress its humanity by pointing at the bodies in the cave. But if taking this tack implies that only humans mourn their dead, the distinction with apes is being drawn far too sharply.不过,“纳勒迪人”的大脑体积较小并未让研究团队退缩,他们转而通过指出尸体放在洞穴内来突出它们人性的一面。但如果用这一点来表示只有人类才会哀悼死者,那我们就把自己和猿类的差别划分得太清晰了。Apes appear to be deeply affected by the loss of others to the point of going totally silent, seeking comfort from bystanders and going into a funk during which they don’t eat for days. They may not inter their dead, but they do seem to understand death’s irreversibility. After having stared for a long time at a lifeless companion — sometimes grooming or trying to revive him or her — apes move on.猿类表现出会因为同伴死亡而深受影响,以至于完全陷入沉默,从旁观者那里寻求安慰,或陷入数天不吃东西的逃避状态。它们可能不会埋葬死去的同类,但它们似乎的确知道死了就不能再复生。长久地盯着死去的同伴——有时会给它们整理皮毛或试图让它们复活——之后,猿类会离开。Since they never stay in one place for long, they have no reason to cover or bury a corpse. Were they to live in a cave or settlement, however, they might notice that carrion attracts scavengers, some of which are formidable predators, like hyenas. It would absolutely not exceed the ape’s mental capacity to solve this problem by either covering odorous corpses or moving them out of the way.因为不会长久待在同一个地方,所以它们没有理由掩盖或埋葬尸体。但如果是生活在一个洞穴里或在一个定居点,它们可能会注意到,尸体的腐肉会吸引食腐动物,有些还是难以对付的捕食者,比如鬣。猿类绝对有足够的智能来解决这个问题,要么把腐臭的尸体掩盖起来,要么把它们移到偏僻的地方。The suggestion by some scholars that this requires belief in an afterlife is pure speculation. We simply don’t know if Homo naledi buried corpses with care and concern or unceremoniously dumped them into a faraway cave to get rid of them.有些学者认为做出这样的行为需要它们具备来生的观念,这纯粹是猜测。我们根本不知道,“纳勒迪人”是以关切的心态埋葬尸体,还是粗暴地将它们抛入偏远洞穴处理掉。It is an odd coincidence that “naledi” is an anagram of “denial.” We are trying way too hard to deny that we are modified apes. The discovery of these fossils is a major paleontological breakthrough. Why not seize this moment to overcome our anthropocentrism and recognize the fuzziness of the distinctions within our extended family? We are one rich collection of mosaics, not only genetically and anatomically, but also mentally.纳勒迪(naledi)和否定(denial)这两个词,字母相同,排序有异,这是一个诡异的巧合。我们花了太大的力气来否认自己是经过改变的猿类。发现这些化石的确是古生物学上的重大突破。为何不利用这次机会来超越人类中心说,承认我们所属的大家庭里各个成员的界限并没有那么分明?我们是一个组成非常丰富的群体,不仅从基因和解剖学上讲如此,在心智上也是如此。 /201509/400011

  • 阜宁县男科挂号
  • 大丰市人民医院好不好国际健康
  • 盐城协和女子医院价格健步问答
  • 滨海县治疗早泄哪家医院最好的
  • 盐城/正规无痛人流医院丽热点
  • 盐城协和医院宫颈糜烂多少钱知道活动盐城/达克宁可以治念珠菌龟头炎么
  • 求医在线响水县人民医院子宫肌瘤多少钱
  • 医护信息盐城/市妇幼保健院人工流产多少钱平安卫生
  • 江苏省农垦肿瘤医院痛经多少钱
  • 盐城/阳痿手术多少钱久久口碑
  • 盐城做人流要多钱88养生盐城/做人流去哪家医院好
  • 盐城/包皮手术分几种
  • 网上共享响水县有治疗前列腺炎吗
  • 兴化市治疗便血哪家医院最好的
  • 医苑口碑盐城妇保医院早孕检查多少钱QQ咨询
  • 乐视信息盐城最好的治疗软下疳医院
  • 盐城市不孕不育医院排名康大全盐城妇幼保健院治疗不孕不育多少钱
  • 千龙诊疗盐城国家高新经济技术开发区男科医院排名健步网
  • 阜宁县治疗子宫肌瘤多少钱京东中文
  • 盐城宫颈糜烂有3度严重么
  • 盐城协和医院治疗宫颈糜烂怎么样
  • 乐视中文建湖县妇科检查多少钱
  • 挂号健康盐城女性医生在线咨询
  • 东台市中医院割痔疮多少钱新华分类
  • 东台市做流产多少钱
  • 盐城韩式割包皮费用
  • 盐都区治疗不孕不育多少钱
  • 滨海县第三人民医院前列腺炎多少钱城市活动
  • 城市助手滨海县妇科大夫
  • 东台市中医院上环多少钱
  • 相关阅读
  • 瞒天过海!集体耕地上建厂房!村民:相关部门集体哑火(三)
  • 暮影战神武灵攻略大全
  • 唐嫣赵丽颖吴昕林允儿李易峰和谁最有感(图)
  • 酒类电商双罢斗
  • 南京查处违规补缴社保证明份购房证明被注销
  • 内蒙古自治区政协原副主席赵黎平一审被判处死刑
  • 近日李念与刚斩获年北京青年电影节影帝的巩峥出现在街边
  • 徐娇穿白袜撑伞古典韵味十足邻家有女初长成
  • 单机斗地主下载:首存优惠
  • 小学生作业本开口说话曝光盗伐林木团伙
  • 相关推荐