濠电姷顣藉Σ鍛村磻閹捐泛绶ゅΔ锝呭暞閸嬪鏌eΟ娆惧殭鏉╂繈姊虹捄銊ユ珢闁瑰嚖鎷�
闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€骞栭锔藉亱闊洦绋戠粣妤呭箹濞n剙濡奸柛銊ュ€块弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏�: 闂備浇顕уù鐑藉极婵犳艾纾诲┑鐘叉搐缁愭鏌¢崶鈺佹灁闁崇懓绉撮埞鎴︽偐閸欏鎮欏┑鈽嗗亝閿曘垽寮诲☉銏犖ㄩ柕蹇婂墲閻濇牠鎮峰⿰鍐ㄧ盎闁瑰嚖鎷� 闂傚倸鍊风欢姘缚閼姐倖瀚婚柣鏃傚帶缁€澶愬箹濞n剙濡奸柛姘秺楠炴牕菐椤掆偓閻忣噣鏌嶇紒妯荤闁哄被鍔戝顒勫垂椤旇瀵栨繝鐢靛仧閵嗗骞忛敓锟� 闂傚倷娴囧畷鍨叏瀹ュ绀冩い顓熷灣閻ヮ亪姊绘担鍛婃儓妞ゆ垵鍊垮畷婊冣攽閸垻鐓撴繝銏f硾婢跺洭宕戦幘缁樻櫜閹肩补鈧磭顔戠紓鍌欐缁躲倝骞忛敓锟� 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鑸电仚濡炪倖鍨甸崯鏉戠暦閺囥垺鐒肩€广儱鎳愰悾娲倵楠炲灝鍔氭い锔诲灣閻ヮ亣顦归柡灞剧〒娴狅箓鎮欓鍌涱吇缂傚倷鑳舵刊鎾箯閿燂拷 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍫曘€佹繝鍕濞村吋娼欑壕鍧楁⒑椤掆偓缁夋挳宕归崒鐐寸厸闁告劑鍔庢晶娑㈡煟閹烘洦鍤欐い顓℃硶閹瑰嫰鎼归崷顓濈礃婵犵绱曢崕鎴﹀箯閿燂拷 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍓佹兜閸洖鐤鹃柣鎰ゴ閺嬪秹鏌ㄥ┑鍡╂Ф闁逞屽厸缁舵艾鐣烽妸鈺佺骇闁瑰濯Σ娲⒑閼姐倕孝婵炲眰鍊曡灒濠电姴娲ょ粈澶愭煥閻曞倹瀚� 濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠伴悹鍥у斀缂傛碍绻涢崱妯虹伇濠殿喗濞婇弻鏇熷緞閸℃ɑ鐝旂紓浣插亾鐎光偓閸曨剙浠梺鎼炲劀閸曘劍鐏嗛梻浣告啞濡垿骞忛敓锟� 闂傚倸鍊峰ù鍥磻閹扮増鍋ら柡鍐ㄧ墕閸ㄥ倸霉閸忓吋鍎楅柡浣告閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 闂傚倷娴囬褏鈧稈鏅犲畷妯荤節濮橆厸鎸冮梺鍛婃处閸撴岸宕h箛娑欑叆闁绘洖鍊圭€氾拷 濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠归柍鍝勬噹閸屻劑鏌i幘宕囩槏闁荤喐瀚堥弮鍫濆窛妞ゆ挾濯Σ娲⒑閼姐倕孝婵炲眰鍊曡灒濠电姴娲ょ粈澶愭煥閻曞倹瀚� 闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€骞夐敓鐘偓鍐疀濞戞ḿ锛涢梺绯曞墲缁嬫垿寮告笟鈧弻鐔煎箲閹伴潧娈紓浣哄У閸ㄥ潡寮婚敓鐘茬妞ゆ劧绲块々浼存⒑閸濄儱娅愰柟鍑ゆ嫹
濠电姷鏁搁崕鎴犲緤閽樺娲晜閻愵剙搴婇梺绋挎湰缁嬫捇銆呴悜鑺ョ叆闁绘洖鍊圭€氾拷: 闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€骞栭锕€纾归柣鎴f绾偓闂佸憡鍔曞Ο濠傘€掓繝姘叆闁绘洖鍊圭€氾拷 闂傚倷娴囧畷鍨叏閺夋嚚娲Χ閸ワ絽浜炬慨妯煎帶閻忥附銇勯姀锛勬噰闁轰焦鎹囬弫鎾绘晸閿燂拷 闂傚倷娴囧畷鐢稿窗閹扮増鍋¢柕澶堝剻濞戞ǚ妲堥柕蹇曞Х閿涙盯姊虹捄銊ユ珢闁瑰嚖鎷� 闂傚倷鐒﹂惇褰掑春閸曨垰鍨傞梺顒€绉甸崑銈夋煛閸ャ儱鐏柛搴★躬閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 闂傚倸鍊烽悞锕傛儑瑜版帒纾归柡鍥╁枑濞呯娀鏌﹀Ο渚▓婵炲吋鐗犻弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊烽悞锕傛儑瑜版帒纾块柛妤冧紳濞差亜惟闁挎棁妫勫鍧楁⒑鐠恒劌娅愰柟鍑ゆ嫹 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鑸电仚缂備胶绮〃鍛存偩閻戣姤鍋ㄧ紒瀣閻庮剟姊虹捄銊ユ珢闁瑰嚖鎷� 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍫曞磿閻㈢ǹ纾婚柟鎹愵嚙缁€澶愮叓閸ャ劍灏甸柡鍡愬€濋弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍫曘€佹繝鍕濞村吋娼欑壕瑙勪繆閵堝懏鍣圭紒鐘崇墵閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 闂傚倸鍊峰ù鍥敋閺嶎厼绀傛繛鍡樻尭绾惧潡鏌$仦璇插姎闁汇倝绠栭弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鑸电仚濡炪倖鍨甸崯鏉戠暦閺囥垹绠绘い鏃傜摂濡懘姊虹捄銊ユ珢闁瑰嚖鎷� 缂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹缁嬫5娲Χ閸♀晜顔旈梺褰掓?缁讹繝寮繝鍥ㄧ叆闁绘洖鍊圭€氾拷 濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠伴柛顐f礀绾惧綊鏌″搴″箹闁绘帒鐏氶妵鍕箳閹搭垱鏁鹃柣搴㈢啲閹凤拷 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍫曞储瑜嶉锝夊箚閼割兛姹楅梺鍛婂姦閸犳牜绮堟径鎰叆闁绘洖鍊圭€氾拷 闂傚倸鍊烽悞锕€顪冮崹顕呯唵濞撴埃鍋撴鐐茬箻閺佹捇鏁撻敓锟� 濠电姷鏁告繛鈧繛浣冲洤纾诲┑鐘叉搐缁狀垶鏌ㄩ悤鍌涘 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍫曞储瑜庨幆鏂库堪閸繄顔嗛梺璺ㄥ櫐閹凤拷 闂傚倷娴囬褏鎹㈤幇顓ф闊洦绋戠粻顖炴煥閻曞倹瀚� 闂傚倸鍊烽悞锕傚箖閸洖纾块柤纰卞墰閻瑩鏌熸潏鎯х槣闁轰礁妫濋弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倷娴囧畷鍨叏閺夋嚚娲煛娴g儤娈鹃梺鍓茬厛閸嬪懎鈻嶉悩缁樼叆闁绘洖鍊圭€氾拷 闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€骞栭鈷氭椽鏁冮埀顒€鐜婚崹顔规瀻闁规儳绉村ú顓㈠极閹剧粯鏅搁柨鐕傛嫹
濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠归柍鍝勬噹閸屻劑鏌ゅù瀣珒闁绘帒锕弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏�: 闂傚倷鐒﹂惇褰掑春閸曨垰鍨傞梺顒€绉甸崑銈夋煛閸ャ儱鐏柛搴★躬閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 闂傚倸鍊峰ù鍥ь浖閵娾晜鍊块柨鏇炲€归崑锟犳煥閺囨浜剧€光偓閿濆懏鍋ラ柡浣规崌閺佹捇鏁撻敓锟� 闂傚倸鍊峰ù鍥敋閺嶎厼绀堟慨妯块哺瀹曟煡鏌涢埄鍐槈闁绘帒鐏氶妵鍕箳閹搭垱鏁鹃柣搴㈢啲閹凤拷 濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠归柍鍝勬噹閻鏌嶈閸撴盯鍩€椤掑喚娼愰柟纰卞亰楠炲繘鏁撻敓锟� 闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€骞夐敓鐘冲亱闁绘劘灏欓弳锕傛煟閵忊懚鍦不閺嶎厽鐓ラ柣鏇炲€圭€氾拷 濠电姷鏁搁崑鐐哄垂閸洖绠伴悹鍥у斀缂傛碍绻涢崱妯虹伇濠殿喗濞婇弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊搁崐宄懊归崶顬盯宕熼娑樹罕闂佸湱鍋撳鍧楀极娓氣偓閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 婵犵數濮甸鏍窗濡ゅ嫭鎳岄梻浣规偠閸斿繐鈻斿☉婊呬罕闂備浇娉曢崳锕傚箯閿燂拷 闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€骞栭锕€纾圭紒瀣紩濞差亜围闁搞儻绲芥禍鍓х棯閺夋妲归悗姘炬嫹 闂傚倸鍊烽悞锕傚垂濠靛鍊块柨鏇炲€告闂佺粯鍔楅弫鍝ョ矆婵犲洦鐓ラ柣鏇炲€圭€氾拷 濠电姴鐥夐弶搴撳亾濡や焦鍙忛柟缁㈠枛鐎氬銇勯幒鎴濐仼闁藉啰鍠栭弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊烽悞锕傚箖閸洖纾块柟缁樺笧閺嗭附淇婇娆掝劅婵炲皷鏅犻弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 濠电姷顣槐鏇㈠磻濞戙埄鏁勯柛銉墮缁愭鏌熼幑鎰靛殭闁告垹濞€閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 闂傚倸鍊峰ù鍥磻閹扮増鍋ら柡鍐ㄧ墕閸ㄥ倿鏌ц箛锝呬簼婵炲懐濞€閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 闂傚倸鍊峰ù鍥磻閹扮増鍋ら柡鍐ㄧ墕閸ㄥ倹銇勯弽銊х煂缂佺姵妫冮弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊峰ù鍥磻閹扮増鍋ら柡鍐ㄧ墕閸ㄥ倿鏌熷▓鍨灓闁告宀搁弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€骞栭锕€纾归悷娆忓閸ㄦ棃鏌﹀Ο渚Ш闁哄棎鍊濋弻銊╂偆閸屾稑顏� 闂傚倸鍊烽懗鍫曞箠閹捐瑙﹂悗锝庡墮閸ㄦ繈骞栧ǎ顒€濡肩痪鎯с偢閺屻劑鎮ら崒娑橆伓 闂傚倸鍊风粈渚€宕ョ€n€綁骞掗幘鍙樼矒闂佸綊妫跨粈渚€宕欓悩缁樼叆闁绘洖鍊圭€氾拷
当前位置: 首页 > 期刊 > 《新英格兰医药杂志》 > 2004年第18期 > 正文
编号:11305088
Abortion, Health, and the Law
http://www.100md.com 《新英格兰医药杂志》

     To the Editor: Greene and Ecker's interesting exploration of difficulties in risk–benefit analyses with regard to therapeutic abortions (Jan. 8 issue)1 is, unfortunately, flawed by the use of disparate comparisons. For example, they cite sources that use dissimilar definitions, populations, and means of case identification to calculate comparative death rates for abortion and childbirth. This approach is problematic, since efforts to track deaths associated with pregnancy and abortion are hampered by inaccurate death certificates and inconsistent definitions.2 Citing the only two record-based, case–control studies that directly compared death rates associated with abortion and childbirth would have been more informative.2,3 Both reveal significantly higher mortality rates associated with abortion than with other outcomes of pregnancy. The one-year age-adjusted odds ratio for death among pregnant women as compared with nonpregnant women was 0.50 for those who gave birth, 0.87 for those who had a miscarriage, and 1.76 for those who had an abortion.2

    The authors also fail to note that couples in which the woman undergoes a therapeutic abortion have high rates of psychiatric sequelae and divorce.4 Although it is known that elective abortion is more strongly associated with subsequent psychiatric hospitalization than is childbirth,5 there have been no comparative studies of therapeutic abortion. Therefore, case–control studies are required to support the authors' risk–benefit analysis.

    David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

    Elliot Institute

    Springfield, IL 62791-7348

    References

    Greene MF, Ecker JL. Abortion, health, and the law. N Engl J Med 2004;350:184-186.

    Gissler M, Kauppila R, Meril?inen J, Toukomaa H, Hemminki E. Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:651-657.

    Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. South Med J 2002;95:834-841.

    Lloyd J, Laurence KM. Sequelae and support after termination of pregnancy for fetal malformation. Br Med J (Clin Red Ed) 1985;290:907-9.

    Reardon DC, Cougle JR, Rue VM, Shuping MW, Coleman PK, Ney PG. Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. CMAJ 2003;168:1253-1256.

    To the Editor: Greene and Ecker present scenarios in which induced abortion might be considered for medical reasons. In one, a woman at 18 weeks of gestation learns that she is carrying an aneuploid fetus. The authors compare the mortality rate associated with abortion (0.6 per 100,000) and the mortality rate among pregnant women 35 to 39 years old (21 per 100,000), yielding a 35-fold risk of death associated with continuing the pregnancy. However, the abortion-related mortality was derived from a population in which more than 90 percent of abortions were performed at less than 16 weeks of gestation and more than 80 percent of procedures were performed in women less than 35 years of age.1 A more appropriate approach would involve a comparison of women aborting a pregnancy at 18 weeks with women carrying a pregnancy to term. The mortality rate associated with abortion at 16 to 20 weeks of gestation is 9.3 per 100,000,2 and the maternal mortality rate during this period is approximately 10 per 100,000.3 There are no data indicating that mortality rates differ according to maternal age between those aborting a pregnancy at 16 to 20 weeks and those carrying a pregnancy to term. Therefore, at 18 weeks of gestation, there is no evidence of a difference between the mortality associated with induced abortion and the mortality associated with the attempt to carry a pregnancy to term.

    Nathan J. Hoeldtke, M.D.

    Tripler Army Medical Center

    Honolulu, HI 96859

    References

    Elam-Evans LD, Strauss LT, Herndon J, Parker WY, Whitehead S, Berg CJ. Abortion surveillance -- United States, 1999. MMWR Surveill Summ 2002;51:1-9, 11.

    Lawson HW, Frye A, Atrash HK, Smith JC, Shulman HB, Ramick M. Abortion mortality, United States, 1972 through 1987. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:1365-1372.

    Maternal mortality -- United States, 1982-1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998;47:705-707.

    To the Editor: Both the Sounding Board article by Greene and Ecker and the accompanying editorial by Drazen1 argue that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act infringes on liberty and medical practice. But if dilation and evacuation is the standard procedure for removing the contents of the uterus between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation, why is it not used in the case of a fetal death? A fetus that dies a natural death in utero is not destroyed before removal, but a living fetus is. If a fetus has no rights or is no different from a cancer, why should it matter whether it is delivered dead or alive? Could it be that watching a 20-to-24-week-old fetus die ex utero, in sight, as opposed to in utero and out of sight, is too much like watching another person die? If so, then we need to rethink the appropriateness of the procedure. For, as John Stuart Mill said, "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others."2

    Pennie Marchetti, M.D.

    Primary Care Physicians of Stow

    Stow, OH 44224

    pmarchetti@ameritech.net

    References

    Drazen JM. Inserting government between patient and physician. N Engl J Med 2004;350:178-179.

    Mill JS. On liberty. 1869. (Accessed April 8, 2004, at http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html.)

    The authors reply: Drs. Reardon and Hoeldtke both object to our assessment that induced abortion at 18 to 24 weeks of gestation is associated with a lower risk of maternal death than a continuing pregnancy. Both refer to studies that have found risks of maternal death associated with induced abortion to be approximately the same as or greater than the risk associated with the attempt to carry a pregnancy to term. Their objections point out several problems in trying to make these comparisons, including problems of confounding by indication, the notion of causality, and the thankfully small numbers of events available to study. According to Dr. Reardon and colleagues' own data from California,1 the risk of maternal death from AIDS during the eight-year period after a first pregnancy that ended in induced abortion was nearly three times as great as that after a first pregnancy that ended with a delivery. Given the amount of time that elapses between human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and death from AIDS, it is likely that the women who chose to terminate their pregnancy did so at least in part because they knew they had HIV infection and were ill. It is also likely that they were sicker than the women with HIV infection or AIDS who chose to continue their pregnancy to term.

    We would also like to suggest that death up to eight years after an induced abortion stretches the notion of "causality." The women in Dr. Reardon and colleagues' study also had significantly higher rates of death due to homicide or suicide in the eight years after an induced abortion than after a term delivery. Were these deaths caused by the abortions, or were they associated with risk-taking behaviors that are also associated with undesired pregnancies and acquisition of HIV infection? The Finnish data that Dr. Reardon cites similarly show an increased risk of death due to an accident, suicide, or homicide in association with induced abortion but no increase in the risk of "natural death."2

    Dr. Hoeldtke points out that the low risk of death associated with abortion that we cite in our article is for all procedures at all gestational ages, and he suggests that such group reporting masks a higher risk associated with late-term procedures. In 1999, nearly 862,000 induced abortions were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 5.7 percent of which had been performed after 16 weeks of gestation. Four maternal deaths were reported, but no information was given on the gestational ages of the fetuses in those cases. Even if all four deaths occurred among the minority of women in whom procedures were performed after 16 weeks, the risk of death would still be half that associated with childbirth between the ages of 35 and 39 years. From 1991 through 1999, nearly a third of all recognized pregnancies ended in abortion, either induced or spontaneous, yet only 4 percent of all maternal deaths during that time were associated with any type of abortion.3

    Dr. Marchetti asks why dilatation and evacuation is not used to evacuate the uterus in the case of fetal death. In fact, the procedure is routinely used for that purpose. She also points out that the difference between the death of a fetus in utero, out of sight, and in full view during a destructive procedure is the degree to which the event offends our sensibilities. We agree.

    Michael F. Greene, M.D.

    Jeffrey L. Ecker, M.D.

    Massachusetts General Hospital

    Boston, MA 02114

    References

    Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. South Med J 2002;95:834-841.

    Gissler M, Kauppila R, Meril?inen J, Toukomaa H, Hemminki E. Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:651-657.

    Chang J, Elam-Evans LD, Berg CJ, et al. Pregnancy-related mortality surveillance -- United States, 1991-1999. MMWR Surveill Summ 2003;52:1-8.
    濠电儑绲藉ú鐘诲礈濠靛洤顕遍柛娑卞枤椤╃兘鏌涘☉鍗炲閺夆晜妫冮弻娑樷枎韫囨挴鍋撴禒瀣劦妞ゆ巻鍋撻柛鐘崇〒濡叉劕鈹戦崶鈹炬灃閻庡箍鍎卞Λ娑㈠焵椤掑鐏︽鐐差儔楠炲洭顢旈崨顓炵哎濠电偠鎻徊鎯洪幋鐘典笉闁挎繂鎷嬮崵鍫澪旈敂绛嬪劌闁哥偞鎸抽弻鏇㈠幢閺囩姴濡介柣銏╁灠缂嶅﹪骞婇敓鐘茬疀妞ゆ挾鍋熸禒鎰版⒑閸︻厐鐟懊洪妶鍥潟闁冲搫鎳庤繚闂佺ǹ鏈粙鎺楁倵椤斿墽纾奸柡鍐ㄥ€稿暩婵犫拃鍕垫疁鐎殿喖鐖煎畷姗€濡歌閸撴垶绻涚€涙ḿ鐭婂Δ鐘叉憸閺侇噣顢曢敂钘夘€涘┑锛勫仜婢х晫绮欐繝鍥ㄧ厸濠㈣泛锕ら弳鏇熸叏閻熼偊妯€闁轰礁绉撮悾婵嬪礃椤垳鎴烽梻浣筋嚃閸犳捇宕濊箛娑辨晣缂備焦岣块埢鏃堟煟閹寸儑渚涢柛鏂垮暣閺岋繝宕掑顓犵厬缂備焦顨呴ˇ閬嶅焵椤掑喚娼愮紒顔肩箻閿濈偤鏁冮崒姘卞摋闁荤娀缂氬▍锝囩矓閸喓鈧帒顫濋鐘闂侀潧娲ゅú銊╁焵椤掑偆鏀版繛澶嬬洴瀹曘垽濡堕崶銊ヮ伕閻熸粎澧楃敮妤咃綖婢舵劖鍋i柛銉娑撹尙绱掓潏銊х畼闁归濞€閹粓鎸婃径澶岀梾濠电偛顕慨楣冨春閺嶎厼鍨傞柕濞炬櫆閸嬨劌霉閿濆懎鏆熸俊顖氱墦濮婃椽顢曢敐鍡欐闂佺粯鎼换婵嬬嵁鐎n喖绠f繝濠傚閹枫劑姊洪幐搴b槈闁哄牜鍓熷畷鐟扳堪閸曨収娴勫銈嗗笂閻掞箓寮抽鍫熺厱闁瑰搫绉村畵鍡涙煃瑜滈崜姘潩閵娾晜鍋傞柨鐔哄Т鐟欙箓骞栭幖顓炵仯缂佲偓婢跺⊕褰掑礂閸忚偐娈ら梺缁樼箖閻╊垰鐣烽敓鐘茬闁肩⒈鍓氶鎴︽⒑鐠団€虫灁闁告柨楠搁埢鎾诲箣閻愭潙顎撳┑鐘诧工閸燁垶骞嗛崒姣綊鎮╅幓鎺濆妷濠电姭鍋撻柟娈垮枤绾鹃箖鏌熺€电ǹ啸鐟滅増鐓¢弻娑㈠箳閺傚簱鏋呭┑鐐叉噹闁帮絾淇婇幘顔芥櫢闁跨噦鎷�

   闁诲海鏁婚崑濠囧窗閺囩喓鈹嶅┑鐘叉搐濡﹢鏌涢妷銏℃珖鐟滃府鎷�  闂備胶枪缁绘鈻嶉弴銏犳瀬闁绘劗鍎ら崕宀勬煟閹伴潧澧い搴嫹  闂佽崵濮村ú銈団偓姘煎灦椤㈡瑩骞嬮敃鈧粈鍕煟濡绲荤紓宥忔嫹  闂備胶鎳撻崥瀣垝鎼淬劌纾奸柕濞炬櫅閸楁娊鏌℃径瀣劸婵☆垽鎷�   闂備浇顫夋禍浠嬪礉瀹€鍕仱闁靛ě鍛紲濠电偛妫欓崝鏍不濞嗘挻鐓曟繛鍡樼懄鐎氾拷   闂備礁鎲″缁樻叏閹绢喖鐭楅柛鈩冪☉缂佲晠鏌熼婊冾暭妞ゃ儻鎷�