The point of Active and passive Euthanasia is to tell the difference between active and passive euthanasia and to decide whether there is a moral difference between the two. The authors’ purpose in the writing is to tell the details of both actions to explain his opinion on the issue. The author feels that there really is no difference between the two when looked at by them selves. He does say that the active euthanasia may be more morally preferable then passive euthanasia would be.
In order to describe both actions the author uses details about a patient that is dieing of cancer that is very painful. The author tells that if no treatment is given then the patient may take a while to die and suffer in doing that but that the doctor did not administer any lethal dose of medicine to cause the death. If the patient were given a lethal dose of medicine, their suffering would be ended. If we are apposed to that then we are for extended suffering was the point of the detail being used.
Another detail that is used is the fact that a doctor is allowed to stop treatment on an infant when the stopped treatment can cause dehydration and withering but the doctor is not allowed to administer a lethal dose of medicine to prevent the baby from suffering.
... Euthanasia is justified because it puts an end to that. It is not important to give gory details of the suffering ... There are two types of euthanasia currently recognized, active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the taking of one's own ... euthanasia Kathleen M. Foley, author of Competent Care for the Dying Instead of Physician-Assisted Suicide, believes doctors should develop treatments ...
In contemporary society, this topic is a big argument topic. Many people agree with the act if it is what the patient wants and they are terminal ill and in a lot of pain. Many other people think that a doctor should not be allowed to make that kind of choice and they are supposed to make life better not end it. I think people will always argue about this issue.