The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is heavily obstructed in the medical field. Through medical ethics, the act of passive euthanasia is condoned by withholding treatment and thus, allowing the patient to die. Without any direct contact with the patient, the doctor is not considered as the cause of death. Thus, the medical field views passive euthanasia as of lesser and more permissible value in comparison to active euthanasia. In the statement made by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, they perceive this as contrary to mercy killing, as it is, the cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family. The advice and judgment of the physician should be free available to the patient and/or his immediate family. However, the meaning of mercy killing in itself refers to ending a patient’s life due to an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. The moment the doctrine actively decides to end his patient’s life because of these factors, he is committing active euthanasia. Though it can be argued that the doctrine consults the patient and their family, which can be considered different than mercy killing, he is still participating in the assisted death. By providing the patient with the means to die, for example, through ridding him or her of treatment, he is taking an active