According to the patient autonomy principle, competent patients should be given the opportunity to choose their treatments, or refuse unwanted ones. The implications of refusing or requesting treatments differ, in both legal and moral terms. Complying with this principle may exemplify challenging issues and some confusion relating to the decision-making processes associated with "End-of-Life" issues. Over the past few decades, health professionals and ethicists have become aware of the confusion caused by the failure to distinguish between the obligation of heal-care professional to respond to the patients' requests for treatment or their refusal to be treated, especially those relating to the "End-of-Life," including Euthanasia DNR {Do Not Resuscitate), and AND (Allowing Natural Death). This confusion is due to the misinterpretation of the terms. With regard to patients' preference to end their lives without suffering, and the use of the terms, such as end-of-life decisions or choices, which may be refusals of, or requests for treatment. This can be understood as the patient's right to choose or reject one or more end-of-life options presented by the physician. However, the issue of physician compliance with the patients' requests to end their lives is not even considered. This paper aims to clarify the meanings and differences between these "End-of-Life" options and the disputes around them. The patient's part ad the nursing professional's important role in honoring these options are elucidated.