Advance Medical Directive Act

How is this different from euthanasia? What concerns or considerations should be further refined so that this is not abused?
The advance medical directive is a volunteery process (which is a crime if others force your decision) of ending one's life if there are any terminal illness, not agreeing to use any medical technology to prolong their life and euthanusia is a process where people can have the decision to end their life. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person's place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment.
Both are the same as both are just ending one's life in a painless and earlier way. However, both are different in way that enthanusia is on a basis where the person does it to end their life painlessly while the advance medical directive act is just to end one's life naturally without/rejecting the aid of any mordern technology.
Currently, enthanusia is accused of opposing the Hippocratic Oath as it is said to kill a patien instead of helping them survive. And now, the medical directive act is also accused of the same thing, as mordern medical technology is supposed to help the patients, instead it just leave patients to die, hence accused of the same thing.
However, this way of endi ng life by many people may be due to reasons like financial problems,superstition , hence causing many people to refuse and reject the use of medication or machines to prolong their life. So, one way to refine woulde be to add in the statement that the patient refuses to use medical technology and hence, want to die a natural death. This would allow the medical directive act to sound better instead of making look muderous.