Physician-assisted suicide involves a patient who has clearly expressed a wish to die, and the doctor is simply acting in accordance with the patient's wishes. In these cases, moral agency is shared by both patient and doctor, while euthanasia, which does not involve an explicit wish to die, leaves agency purely in the hands of the doctor performing the act.
I perceive this question to be referring to letting someone die (removing life support) versus helping someone die. In which case, yes, the two are quite different. Doctors regularly will remove someone from life support, and it's a natural thing to do. Before IVs existed, this is how we let people naturally die. Conversely, physician-assisted suicide is a more direct way to cause death. So one is letting someone die, while the other is causing someone to die. These are two distinct things, and passive euthanasia can be a moral and kind way to let someone go when it's known s/he will not recover from an illness.
No, there is no moral different between passive euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. They are both allowing a person to die that is in a weak condition. This is the ultimate exploitation of someone who is weak and defenseless. A person contemplating physician assisted suicide is not thinking clearly and open to vulnerability. They are both wrong.
There is no moral difference between passive euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In both causes the person is terminally ill and by not providing further medical assistance they will die. In both causes the decision to stop providing beneficial medical treatment is the same. This means that there is no moral difference.
There is not a moral difference between Passive Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. I think they should be left up to the patient and the doctor and nobody else besides family should be involved in the decision. I think that it is wrong that we allow patients to lay in a bed and suffer when they do not want to.
Both passive euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide end in the same way, a person's life is intentionally ended. Morally speaking, there's no argument to get around this simple fact. I can understand situations where a person might prefer to end their life, believing that it's better than living with their condition but the issue still remains.
When someone is sick, we need a way to let them die peacefully. Both passive euthanasia and physician assisted suicide allow for this. We make sure that our animal friends do not suffer, but we are very wary about making sure our relatives and friends do not suffer. Both of these are good alternatives.
There is no moral difference between passive euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia means that a person no longer gets what they need to be kept alive. An example is a person who is taken off of life-support. The goal of both actions is for the person to die. Therefore morally speaking they are the same.