It performs a reflexive analysis on the confrontation between the fundamental rights of conscientious objection of the health professional - physician - and the freedom of choice of the terminal patient in Brazilian law. The general objective is to demonstrate that it is possible to reconcile the physician's legitimate refusal to act based on the fact that the therapeutic conduct represents a serious psychological shock for him, as it contradicts his moral and philosophical values and the patient's freedom to choose whether to be treated or not. It seeks to emphasize that, although the prestige of the patient's autonomy in the end of life, must be taken for granted, through valid refusals and anticipated directives of will, the right of the physician, conscientious objector, can not be disregarded. The specific objective is to analyze the ways of solving these conflicts, highlighting the restrictions and limits applicable to fundamental rights, since these are not absolute, pointing out the most appropriate instrument to remedy the confrontation. The methodology adopted was the logical-deductive method, through bibliographic research, adopting as reference the external theory of restriction of fundamental rights and the criterion of proportionality.