Recent years have witnessed a growing concern that terminally ill patients are needlessly suffering in the dying process. This has led to demands that physicians become more attentive in the assessment of suffering and that they treat their patients as 'whole persons.' For the most part, these demands have not fallen on deaf ears. It is now widely accepted that the relief of suffering is one of the fundamental goals of medicine. Without question this is a positive development. However, while the importance of treating suffering has generally been acknowledged, insufficient attention has been paid to the question of whether different types of terminal suffering require different responses from health care professionals. In this paper we introduce a distinction between two types of suffering likely to be present at the end of life, and we argue that physicians must distinguish between these types if they are to respond appropriately to the suffering of their terminally ill patients. After introducing this distinction and explaining its basis, we further argue that the distinction informs a (novel) principle of proportionality, one that should guide physicians in balancing their competing obligations in responding to terminal suffering. As we explain, this principle is justified by reference to the interests terminally ill patients have in restoration, as well as in the relief of suffering, at the end of life.