Just to take things a step further:
Two points struck me immediately about this. The first is that Doyal dismisses as a legal fiction the distinction between what is done and what is allowed to happen, although this distinction is embedded in everyday moral thinking. The second is that, having dismissed the distinction, he seems to think that we are left with an obligation to end life in many more cases. Yet the distinction is usually collapsed ( in my limited experience) by those who argue for preserving life by heroically prolonged intervention.Originally Posted by Hazen
Anyway, here is a link to further reading on medical ethics, from a source to which Doyal has contributed:
The style as we like is the humdrum.