Among those who criticize the concept of a common refrain is that we really have no idea what futility means. For example, physicians seem to disagree on whether a treatment being futile means that it has a less than 5% chance of working or a 20% chance of working. If the concept is so unclear, then it seems a thin reed upon which to base a momentous ethical decision—namely, that the physician's judgment should be allowed to override the wishes (...) of the competent patient or the patient's duly appointed surrogate. (shrink)

This essay discusses the history of the "futility debate" and the motives that sometimes prompt health care professionals, health care providers, patients, and surrogates to take different sides in it. Changes in the health care system, financial responsibility shifts, technical medical advances, and medical care rationing are analyzed as contributors to the futility debate. So too are variations in the definition of futility examined as part of the current controversy. The respective attitudes of professionals, providers, (...) patients, and surrogates in accepting the goals, capabilities, and limits of medicine are also explored. In particular, the lack of honest communication between health care professionals/health care providers on the one hand and patients/surrogates on the other is acknowledged as a major roadblock in the building of care-focused futility policies. Finally, various initial attempts of hospitals to create futility guidelines are evaluated in order to detect problem areas and to suggest lines of improvement. Keywords: medical futility, medical decision-making, virtues, resource allocation CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Howard Brody expresses concern that citing the “two cases that put futility on the map,” namely Helga Wanglie and Baby K, may be providing ammunition to the opponents of the concept of medical futility. He in fact joins well-known opponents of the concept of medical futility in arguing that it is one thing for the physician to say whether a particular intervention will promote an identified goal, quite another to say whether a goal is worth pursuing. In (...) the latter instance, physicians are laying themselves open “to the criticism of taking on basic value judgments that are more appropriately left to patients and their surrogates.” Brody states that in both the Wanglie and Baby K cases, the “basic value judgments” had to do with the worthiness of maintaining unconscious life via medical technology. He classifies this as “a question of professional integrity—but not a question of futility,” adding that “more than semantics hinges on this distinction.” The “more than semantics” factor is a pragmatic, even political one. Failure to make this distinction renders physicians “that much more suspect and less trustworthy in the public debate.”. (shrink)

The issue of physician refusal of requested treatment has fueled a two-pronged debate in our society-one on the meaning of futility and the other on the limits of patient autonomy. The latter is a genuinely philosophic dispute; the former, it seems, is a modern relapse into nominalism.It is not the meaning of a word, but the moral basis for the actions of the par-ticipants that should be the focus of our attention, Yet the medical literature distracts us with (...) articles titled “Medical Futility: Its Meaning and Ethical Implica-tions” “The Problem with Futility” “Who Defines Futility?,” “The Illusion of Futility,” and even “Beyond Futility.”The history of the futility debate, which was launched by a 1983 study of Bedell and Delbanco that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of CPR for certain catego-ries of patients, has been documented elsewhere. Here we will inquire if the term, and its rapid intrusion into the medical lexicon, serves a useful purpose or if, as Truog suggested, we would all be better off if this new buzzword were jettisoned. (shrink)

In a recent issue of CambridgeQuarterlyofHealthcareEthics, Howard Brody and Lawrence Schneiderman offer contrasting opinions about how to apply the concept of in medicine. Brody holds that are those in which it is reasonably certain that a given intervention when applied for the purpose of attaining a specific clinical goal. To determine which actions are futile, Brody prescribes a division of labor. Patients are charged with choosing the goals of treatment while physicians are charged with determining whether specific treatments will be (...) effective in achieving these goals. Though physicians do not choose specific goals, Brody thinks they have a prerogative to decide whether they can, in good conscience, aid in the achievement of specific patient goals. Let us use to denote choosing between alternative goals and to denote choices about whether one will assist in the pursuit of particular goals. Brody's position is essentially that patients are positive validators and that physicians are negative validators. Brody concludes that treatments that are effective in achieving patients' goals are not futileFutilitypromote a goal that both agree is desirable.”. (shrink)

Physicians who care for critically ill people with opioid use disorder frequently face medical, legal, and ethical questions related to the provision of life-saving medical care. We examine a complex medical case that illustrates these challenges in a person with relapsing injection drug use. We focus on a specific question: Is futility an appropriate and useful standard by which to determine provision of life-saving care to such individuals? If so, how should such determinations be made? If not, what alternative (...) decisionmaking framework exists? We determine that although futility has been historically utilized as a justification for withholding care in certain settings, it is not a useful standard to apply in cases involving people who use injection drugs for non-medical purposes. Instead, we are welladvised to explore each patient's situation in a holistic approach that includes the patient, family members, and care providers in the decision-making process. The scope of the problem illustrated demonstrates the urgent need to definitively improve outcomes in people who use injection drugs. Increasing access to high quality medication-assisted treatment and psychiatric care for individuals with opioid use disorder will help our patients achieve a sustained remission and allow us to reach this goal. (shrink)

For many years a debate has raged over what constitutes futile medical care, if patients have a right to demand what doctors label as futile, and whether physicians should be obliged to provide treatments that they think are inappropriate. More recently, the argument has shifted away from the difficult project of definitions, to outlining institutional policies and procedures that take a measured and patient-by-patient approach to deciding if an existing or desired intervention is futile. The prototype is the Texas (...) Advance Directives Act, but similar procedures have been widely implemented both with and without the protection of the law. While this method has much to recommend it, there are inherent moral flaws that have not received as much discussion as warranted. Because these strategies adopt a semblance of procedural justice, it is assumed that the outcomes of such proceedings will be both correct and fair. In this paper, I argue that there are three main irremediable defects in the policy approach: there is the potential for arbitrary decision-making about futility in specific cases; there are structural, pre-ordained consequences for ethnic minorities who would be disproportionately affected by the use of these procedures; and the use of rationing justifications to support the use of these policies. These flaws detract so much from any benefit that could be derived that they make such strategies more harmful than helpful. (shrink)

The futility debate may be considered as an effort to provide a clear and justified borderline between physician and patient decision–making authority. In this paper we argue that the search for a definition of futility that provides physicians with a final argument in discussions about life–prolonging treatment, is misplaced. An acceptable and meaningful criterion of futility that satisfies this effort seems impossible. As a consequence, we reject a dichotomous domain of decision–making power as the starting point (...) for definitions of futility. A good decision about withholding life–sustaining treatment should be justified from the perspectives of both physician and patient. In this light, a range of definitions of futility is still useful as it can clarify intuitions that a treatment is inappropriate. (shrink)

It probably should not be surprising, in this time of soaring medical costs and proliferating technology, that an intense debate has arisen over the concept of medical futility. Should doctors be doing all the things they are doing? In particular, should they be attempting treatments that have little likelihood of achieving the goals of medicine? What are the goals of medicine? Can we agree when medical treatment fails to achieve such goals? What should the physician do and not (...) do under such circumstances? Exploring these issues has forced us to revisit the doctor-patient relationship and the relationship of the medical profession to society in a most fundamental way. Medical futility has both a quantitative and qualitative component. I maintain that medical futility is the unacceptable likelihood of achieving an effect that the patient has the capacity to appreciate as a benefit. Both emphasized terms are important. A patient is neither a collection of organs nor merely an individual with desires. Rather, a patient (from the word to suffer ) is a person who seeks the healing (meaning to make whole ) powers of the physician. The relationship between the two is central to the healing process and the goals of medicine. Medicine today has the capacity to achieve a multitude of effects, raising and lowering blood pressure, speeding, slowing, and even removing and replacing the heart, to name but a minuscule few. But none of these effects is a benefit unless the patient has at the very least the capacity to appreciate it. Sadly, in the futility debate wherein some critics have failed or refused to define medical futility an important area of medicine has in large part been neglected, not only in treatment decisions at the bedside, but in public discussions—comfort care—the physician’s obligation to alleviate suffering, enhance well being and support the dignity of the patient in the last few days of life. (shrink)

‘Futility’ is a contentious term that has eluded clear definition, with proposed descriptions either too strict or too vague to encompass the many facets of medical care. Requests for futile care are often surrogates for requests of a more existential character, covering the whole range of personal, emotional, cultural and spiritual needs. Physicians and other practitioners can use requests for futile care as a valuable opportunity to connect with their patients at a deeper level than the mere biomedical diagnosis. (...) Current debate around Canada’s changing regulatory and legal framework highlights challenges in appropriately balancing the benefits and burdens created by requests for futile care. (shrink)

Pellegrino has argued that end-of-life decisions should be based upon the physician's assessment of the effectiveness of the treatment and the patient's assessment of its benefits and burdens. This would seem to imply that conditions for medical futility could be met either if there were a judgment of ineffectiveness, or if the patient were in a state in which he or she were incapable of a subjective judgment of the benefits and burdens of the treatment. I argue that a (...) theory of futility according to Pellegrino would deny that latter but would permit some cases of the former. I call this the circumspect view. I show that Pellegrino would adopt the circumspect view because he would see the medical futility debate in the context of a system of medical ethics based firmly upon a philosophy of medicine. The circumspect view is challenged by those who would deny that one can distinguish objective from subjective medical judgments. I defend the circumspect view on the basis of a previously neglected aspect of the philosophy of medicine -- an examination of varieties of medical judgment. I then offer some practical applications of this theory in clinical practice. (shrink)

In traditional decision theory, utility is regarded as a mathematical representation of preferences to be inferred from agents hedonic experiences. Some go as far as to contend that utility is literally computed by specific neural areas and urge economists to complement or substitute their notion of utility with some neuro-psychological construct. In this paper, I distinguish three notions of utility that are frequently mentioned in debates about decision theory and examine some critical issues regarding their definition and measurability. Moreover, I (...) provide various empirical and conceptual reasons to doubt that economists should base decision theoretic analyses on some neuro-psychological notion of utility. (shrink)

Debates about medical futility first emerged in the scholarly literature during the 1990s after empirical studies showed the widespread use of medical interventions offering no reasonable chance of...

While the era following the Bland decision in 19931 might be thought of as the time when concepts such as ‘futility’ were placed under pressure and scrutiny, it’s an idea that has been debated for at least forty years. In a 1983 JME commentary Bryan Jennett distinguishes three kinds of reason why Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation might be withheld: > ‘… that CPR would be futile because it is very unlikely to be successful; that quality of life after CPR is likely (...) to be changed to so poor a level as to be a greater burden than the benefit gained from prolongation of life, and that quality of life is already so poor due to chronic or terminal disease that life should not be prolonged by CPR.’ pp-142-1432 This crisp definition seems as applicable as it did then, but it was not the final word on the concept. Mitchell, Kerridge and Lovat explore, as others did in the post-Bland and Quinlan eras, how ‘futility’ might apply to those in a …. (shrink)

In 1989, Helga Wanglie, 86 years old, broke her hip. This began a medical downhill course that a year later caused her health care providers to conclude that she would not benefit from continued medical treatment. It would be futile, and therefore, should not be provided. Her husband disagreed, and the conflict eventually led to a lawsuit. The Wanglie case touched off an extended debate in the medical and bioethical literature about medical futility: what it means and how (...) useful the concept is in making ethical decisions about starting or stopping treatment. (shrink)

This paper reframes the futility debate, moving away from the question “Who decides when to end what is considered to be a medically inappropriate or futile treatment?” and toward the question “How can society make policy that will best account for the multitude of values and conflicts involved in such decision-making?” It offers a pragmatist moral epistemology that provides us with a clear justification of why it is important to take best standards, norms, and physician judgment seriously and (...) a clear justification of why ample opportunity must be made for patients, families, and society to challenge those standards and norms. (shrink)

Basic disagreements about what makes human life valuable hinder use of the concept of futility to decide whether it is appropriate to continue life support for one in a permanent state of unconsciousness, or to provide intensive medical care to one in the last stages of a terminal illness (the “paradigm cases”). Triage planning (the process of establishing criteria for health care prioritization) is an attractive alternative framework for addressing the paradigm cases. Triage planning permits society to see the (...) cases in the context of diverse moral perspectives, limited resources, and competing health care demands. Furthermore, at least one essential question posed by the paradigm cases is whether treatment is wasteful, and triage planning is a useful model for identifying and eliminating wasteful medical care. The authors describe how triage planning can be implemented to address the paradigm cases, and conclude that it offers one way of moving debate about these cases beyond futility. (shrink)

As medical technology has advanced, the question of medical futility has become a topic of intense debate both within the medical community and within society as a whole. However, a unanimous definition thereof is yet to be decided—some commentators are sceptical as to whether an agreement will ever be reached—and this continues to lead to difficulties, tension, and even legal action when a treating physician disagrees with a patient and/or a patient’s family regarding care and treatment options. Although (...) living in a pluralistic society presents one of the major reasons as to why, despite 30 years of intense discussion, no consensus has been made; the issue of medical futility will always be complex as it is, by nature, multifaceted, and numerous elements—including possible risks, evidence of the probability of benefit, the wishes of the patient (and family), professional standards, and cost—interact. Nevertheless, the global medical community has seen the development of two distinctly different approaches to medical futility: one in which the autonomy of patients is of paramount importance in the decision whether or not to pursue a treatment; and one in which beneficence and primum non nocere—first do no harm—are almost entirely the clinician’s prerogative, and whereby he/she has a duty to refuse any treatment for which the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits for the patient. Recently, however, there has been a rejection of this dichotomous view of medical futility and the apparent “power struggle” between physician and patient, and a positive movement towards a more collaborative decision-making process that highlights the necessity of communication, aiming to result in the obtainment of the best possible outcome for each patient as an individual. (shrink)

Medical futility, one of the most debated end-of-life issues in medical ethics, has been discussed among physicians and scholars for years but remained an unresolved question. Roger C. Bone (1941–1997), an outstanding pulmonologist and critical care specialist, devoted his last years to ethical issues of terminal care, while facing himself metastatic renal cancer. Criticising the abuse of technology in terminal care and the administrative and financial interference on medical decisions, he bequeathed important points on futility, bringing also patients’ (...) views into attention. He stressed the importance of physician-patient relationship and prompted physicians to remain honest with their patients and stand with them till their very last moments. Roger Bone’s insight of futility, terminal care and physician-patient relationship remains an important legacy for health care professionals and for families and patients facing end-of-life issues. (shrink)

Pediatricians provided expert testimony that, in the case of Baby K, provision of ventilator support goes beyond accepted standards of care for anencephalic infants and so is medically futile. This argument, however reasonable, does not persuade those who believe in the absolute value of even a fraction of human life. In Baby K, court records indicate that Ms. H, Baby K's mother, persistently adheres to the sanctity-of-life principle on religious grounds.While I think that quality-of-life considerations have a role in medical (...) decision making, those who reject such considerations must be respected. This article makes the following claims, on behalf of religious dissenters: the Baby K case should be interpreted in light of the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment ; religious beliefs should not be trivialized in clinical ethics, even if reason, not belief, is the language of the public forum; the time-honored free exercise clause is essential to the American experiment in liberty and should not be overridden in the name of a concept as vague as futility; and free exercise of religion deserves serious discussion in the futility debate, and significant religious accommodation must be included in any hospital or societal futility policies. In the concluding section, issues are raised regarding the balance between religious consideration and resource allocation. (shrink)

Pediatricians provided expert testimony that, in the case of Baby K, provision of ventilator support goes beyond accepted standards of care for anencephalic infants and so is medically futile. This argument, however reasonable, does not persuade those who believe in the absolute value of even a fraction of human life. In Baby K, court records indicate that Ms. H, Baby K's mother, persistently adheres to the sanctity-of-life principle on religious grounds.While I think that quality-of-life considerations have a role in medical (...) decision making, those who reject such considerations must be respected. This article makes the following claims, on behalf of religious dissenters: the Baby K case should be interpreted in light of the freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment ; religious beliefs should not be trivialized in clinical ethics, even if reason, not belief, is the language of the public forum; the time-honored free exercise clause is essential to the American experiment in liberty and should not be overridden in the name of a concept as vague as futility; and free exercise of religion deserves serious discussion in the futility debate, and significant religious accommodation must be included in any hospital or societal futility policies. In the concluding section, issues are raised regarding the balance between religious consideration and resource allocation. (shrink)

Over the past 50 years, technical advances have taken place in medicine that have greatly increased the possibilities of life-prolonging intervention. The increased possibilities of intervening have brought along new ethical questions. Not everything that is technically possible is appropriate in a specific case: not everything that could be done should be done. In the 1980s, a new term was coined to indicate a class of inappropriate interventions: “medically futile treatment”. A debate followed, with contributions from the USA and (...) several western European countries. A similar debate later took place in Mediterranean countries, although with a different terminology. The purpose of this article is to provide an up-to-date and systematic analysis of the concept of futility, and to draw some conclusions on its operationalisation in medical practice. While the concept of “medical futility” in theory applies to all kinds of medical intervention that might be performed without being medically indicated—things such as certain medical screenings and cosmetic surgery—in practice the literature on “futility” deals only with life-saving and life-sustaining medical interventions. This article deals with this more limited application of the concept of “futility”. (shrink)

“There's glory for you!”“I don't know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course, you dont—till I tell you. I meant ‘there's a nice knock-down argument.’”“But ‘glory’ doesn't mean a ‘nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”“The question is,” said (...) Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that's all.”When applied bioethics confronts the topic of futility, the question of who is to be master turns out to be central. Indeed, much of the literature on futility has focused on exactly this question: who gets to define the terms of the debate? Who gets to decide that treatment is “futile” and therefore allowably withheld or withdrawn? (shrink)

“There's glory for you!”“I don't know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course, you dont—till I tell you. I meant ‘there's a nice knock-down argument.’”“But ‘glory’ doesn't mean a ‘nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”“The question is,” said (...) Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that's all.”When applied bioethics confronts the topic of futility, the question of who is to be master turns out to be central. Indeed, much of the literature on futility has focused on exactly this question: who gets to define the terms of the debate? Who gets to decide that treatment is “futile” and therefore allowably withheld or withdrawn? (shrink)

The debate about medical futility is no longer in its infancy. Scholarly literature on this seemingly intractable problem is voluminous. The list of widely publicized cases in which physicians have wanted to discontinue life-sustaining medical treatment that families demand has grown to include not just Helga Wanglie, but also Baby Rena, Baby L, Jane Doe, Joseph Finelli, Baby K, and Teresa Hamilton. A futility case has now been decided at the appellate court level.Commentators have generated three kinds (...) of proposals for resolving these conflicts. One group contends that the problem can be solved within the physician-patient-family relationship. While some in this group view professional authority broadly enough to warrant unilateral judgments by physicians that interventions desired by the patient or family should not be provided, others contend that physician authority does not extend that far, and that any resolution must be constrained by informed consent requirements. (shrink)

The debate about medical futility is no longer in its infancy. Scholarly literature on this seemingly intractable problem is voluminous. The list of widely publicized cases in which physicians have wanted to discontinue life-sustaining medical treatment that families demand has grown to include not just Helga Wanglie, but also Baby Rena, Baby L, Jane Doe, Joseph Finelli, Baby K, and Teresa Hamilton. A futility case has now been decided at the appellate court level.Commentators have generated three kinds (...) of proposals for resolving these conflicts. One group contends that the problem can be solved within the physician-patient-family relationship. While some in this group view professional authority broadly enough to warrant unilateral judgments by physicians that interventions desired by the patient or family should not be provided, others contend that physician authority does not extend that far, and that any resolution must be constrained by informed consent requirements. (shrink)

The modern debate on whether—and why—physicians and hospitals can refuse patient or family demands for treatment on grounds of “futility” will be reaching its 20th anniversary this year (Blackhall, 1987). The early debate focused on the use of CPR, for good historical and clinical reasons, and CPR probably remains the primary target of hospital policy. But the reach of the arguments over futility extends well beyond this context, most vividly illustrated by the case of Helga Wanglie (...) and the many commentaries it spawned (Brody, 1998; Schneiderman, 1998; Trotter, 1999). There seems no obvious reason in principle that questions about futility cannot be raised about virtually any form of treatment that patients or families might demand, including such things as chemotherapy for cancer (Tomlinson, 2001). Still, we might fairly ask what new dimensions and complexities the futility question acquires when it moves onto decisions about treatments other than CPR. This is what I would like to do in this essay. I will use dialysis as the case in point, although I hope to extract lessons from the dialysis example that will be pertinent to other forms of life-sustaining treatment, like ventilators. (shrink)

Schneiderman, Jecker, and Jonsen disagree with two recent policy statements of professional medical organizations over whether to call some medical interventions “inappropriate” or “potentially inappropriate” that have previously been labelled “futile.” I would agree that inappropriate is a hopelessly ambiguous term that should not be used in the long-running debate, more normally referred to as the futility controversy. I find, however, that Schneiderman, Jecker, and Jonsen end up with the same policy conclusion as the two policy statements. When (...) patients or their surrogates disagree with clinicians about whether to provide certain treatments, they all... (shrink)

The aim of this article is to analyse the contemporary ‘futility discourse’ from a constructivist perspective. I will argue that bioethics discourse typically disregards the con text from which controversies emerge and the processes that inform and constrain such discourse. Constructivists have argued that scientific knowledge is expressive of the dominant paradigm within which a scientific community is working. I will outline an analysis of ‘medical futility’ as a construction of biomedical and bioethical communities (and their respective paradigms). (...) I will trace the emergence and utilization of futility in the literature. My analysis of the context (i.e. the historical circumstances, the particular actors involved) within which the futility discourse emerged suggests that medical futility was constructed, in part, as a means of enhancing physician domination of a context wherein medical authority was threatened. The actors in this debate express widely divergent frameworks of ‘the good’, arguing from distinctive representations of moral agency. At times, this controversy has been argued from incommensurate moral horizons wherein the discussants debate incomparable problems. This discussion is related to a study of the ‘practice’ of futility in the clinical context. Further studies on the construction of bioethical problems are a necessary condition for supporting the truth claims of bioethical arguments. (shrink)

It has been argued extensively that diagnostic services are a general good, but that it is offered in excess. So what is the problem? Is not “too much of a good thing wonderful”, to paraphrase Mae West? This article explores such a possibility in the field of radiological services where it is argued that more than 40% of the examinations are excessive. The question of whether radiological examinations are excessive cries for a definition of diagnostic futility. However, no such (...) definition is found in the literature. As a response, this article addresses the issue of diagnostic futility in five steps. First, it investigates whether the concept of therapeutic futility can be adapted to diagnostics. A closer analysis of the concept of therapeutic futility reveals that this will not do the trick. Second, the article scrutinizes whether there are sources for clarifying diagnostic futility in the extensive debate on excessive radiological examination. Investigating the debate’s terms and definitions reveals a disparate terminology and no clear concepts. On the contrary, the study uncovers that quite different and incompatible issues are at stake. Third, the article examines a procedural approach, which is widely used for settling controversies over utility by focusing on the role of the professionals. On scrutiny however, a procedural approach will not solve the problem in diagnostics. Fourth, a value analysis reveals how we have to decide on the negative value of excessive examinations before we can measure excess. The final and constructive part presents a definition of diagnostic futility drawing upon the lessons from the previous analytical steps. Altogether, too much radiological examination is not a good thing. This is simply because radiological examinations are not unanimously good. Excessive radiological examinations can be defined, but not by one simple general and value-neutral definition. We have to settle with contextually framed value-related definitions. Such definitions will state how bad “too much of a good thing” is and make it possible to assess how much of the bad thing there is. Hence we have to know how bad it is before we can tell how much of it there is in the world. (shrink)

This paper attempts to provide a descriptive theoretical overview of the medical futility debate. I will first argue that quantitative data cannot alone resolve the medical futility debate. I will then examine two aspects of medical futility, which I call the prospective and immediate, respectively. The first involves making prospective factual and value judgments about the efficacy of proposed medical interventions, while the latter involves making value judgments about ongoing medical conditions where the clinical data (...) are clear. At stake is the nature and scope of individual rights. Thus, I maintain there is an undeveloped aspect to the medical futility debate and, briefly, analyze two political perspectives which give rise to different understandings of medical futility. The view that I will defend is that only a system with defined collective goals can accommodate a normative concept of medical futility. These larger questions are the value options which, if unaddressed, may be settled by default of economic grounds. (shrink)

There is little to indicate from, her circumstances that events would propel Helga Wanglie, an 86-year-old Minneapolis woman, into the center of public controversy. We know little of her life prior to the events that removed her from the world of conscious, sentient beings. By the time of her death on 4 July 1991, Mrs. Wanglie had become the focus of a nationwide public and professional debate on the rights of a patient in a persistent vegetative state to receive (...) aggressive medical treatment when such treatment is felt by the patient's doctors not to be in the patient's best interests. (shrink)

BackgroundThe current debate about medical futility is mostly driven by theoretical and personal perspectives and there is a lack of empirical data to document experts and public attitudes towards medical futility.MethodsTo examine the attitudes of the Japanese experts in the fields relevant to medical futility a questionnaire survey was conducted among the members of the Japan Association for Bioethics. A total number of 108 questionnaires returned filled in, giving a response rate of 50.9%. Among the respondents (...) 62% were healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 37% were non-healthcare professionals (Non-HCPs).ResultsThe majority of respondents (67.6 %) believed that a physician's refusal to provide or continue a treatment on the ground of futility judgment could never be morally justified but 22.2% approved such refusal with conditions. In the case of physiologically futile care, three-quarters believed that a physician should inform the patient/family of his futility judgment and it would be the patient who could decide what should be done next, based on his/her value judgment. However more than 10% said that a physician should ask about a patient's value and goals, but the final decision was left to the doctor not the patient. There was no statistically significant difference between HCPs and Non-HCPs (p = 0.676). Of respondents 67.6% believed that practical guidelines set up by the health authority would be helpful in futility judgment.ConclusionThe results show that there is no support for the physicians' unilateral decision- making on futile care. This survey highlights medical futility as an emerging issue in Japanese healthcare and emphasizes on the need for public discussion and policy development. (shrink)

Medical futility is one of the most controversial concepts in biomedical ethics. Different people have proposed diverse definitions. Nevertheless, decisions about medical futility have tremendous impacts on clinical practice and physician-patient relationships. The most fundamental dispute about medical futility is whether or not value-laden judgments regarding medical futility are acceptable.In this essay, I argue that value-laden judgments of medical futility are necessary in clinical settings because a majority of "futility " debates have focused on (...) medical problems requiring value-laden judgments. Value judgments made by physicians can be used in the form of recommendation given in the process of informed consent. Physicians' value judgments might be well informed and calm.I believe that imposing one's value on others is one thing and having a certain position about value is the other. Physicians should establish their ethical attitudes in physician-patient relationships, but I strongly object to physicians' imposing their value judgments on patients and their family in any situation. In most "futility" cases, physicians must not withhold information about medical interventions that they believe are futile. It is essential for physicians to openly discuss their beliefs regarding what makes a human life valuable and what constitutes benefits with their patients and patients' families. There are many barriers to a physicians making sound value judgments. Therefore, it is mandatory for physicians to be aware that they are making value judgments about medical interventions and recognize that value judgments could be biased by self-interest. It is also important for them to admit that physicians have no expertise in value judgments about individual cases. (shrink)

The debate over futility is driven, in part, by physicians' desire to recover some measure of decision-making authority from their patients. The standard approach begins by noting that certain interventions are futile for certain patients and then asserts that doctors have no obligation to provide futile treatment. The concept of futility is a complex one, and many commentators find it useful to distinguish ‘physiological futility’ from ‘qualitative futility’. The assertion that physicians can decide to withhold (...) physiologically futile treatment generates little controversy. The claim that they can withhold qualitatively futile treatment runs afoul of standard objections to medical paternalism. There is reason to believe that the conceptual distinction will not be maintained in clinical practice. This paper contends that the scientific data which would support a physician's unilateral decision to withhold physiologically futile treatment also provide support for an institutional policy restricting access to the treatment. The data the doctor uses to take decision-making power out of the hands of the patient can be used by the administrator to take power out of the hands of the doctor. While this loss of power is unproblematic, there is reason to believe that the ambiguity in the term ‘futility’ will allow a much greater loss of physicians' power. Keywords: futility, physician authority CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Medical futility is often defined as providing inappropriate treatments that will not improve disease prognosis, alleviate physiological symptoms, or prolong survival. This understanding of medical futility is problematic because it rests on the final outcomes of procedures that are narrow and medically defined. In this article, Walker's `expressivecollaborative' model of morality is used to examine how certain critical care interventions that are considered futile actually have broader social functions surrounding death and dying. By examining cardiopulmonary resuscitation and life-sustaining (...) intensive care measures as moral practices, we show how so-called futile interventions offer ritualistic benefit to patients, families, and health care providers, helping to facilitate the process of dying. This work offers a new perspective on the ethical debate concerning medical futility and provides a means to explore how the social value of treatments may be as important in determining futility as medical scientific criteria. (shrink)

Futility disputes are increasing and courts are slowly abandoning their historical reluctance to engage these contentious issues, particularly when confronted with inappropriate surrogate demands for aggressive treatment. Use of the judicial system to resolve futility disputes inevitably brings media attention and requires clinicians, hospitals, and families to debate these deep moral conflicts in the public eye. A recent case in Minnesota, In re Emergency Guardianship of Albert Barnes, explores this emerging trend and the complex responsibilities of clinicians (...) and hospital administrators seeking to replace an unfaithful surrogate demanding aggressive therapy. Use of the courts requires the coordinated commitment of significant institutional resources, management of intense media scrutiny and individual and organizational courage to enter the unpredictable world of litigation. Given the dearth of legislative guidance on medical futility, individual clinicians and institutions will continue to bear the difficult responsibility for resolution of individual futility disputes. The Barnes case illustrates how one institution successfully used the judicial system to replace an unfaithful surrogate, cease the provision of inappropriate aggressive care, and stimulate a community dialogue about appropriate care at the end of life. (shrink)

In Japan, few studies and ethical debates have addressed medical futility, but articles suggesting the practice of such treatment exist. The present study aimed to explore attitudes about this by examining personal practical experiences of those who have been involved in judging treatments as futile. We employed a qualitative descriptive design with content analysis of semi-structured and focus group interviews with 11 Japanese physicians and 9 nurses of a university hospital in Japan. The interviews mined their practical experience to (...) identify why they provided treatment that was regarded futile, factors for determining futility, and attitudes toward foregoing futile treatments. All participants had provided treatments judged as futile for various reasons, such as patient request, inadequate decision-making processes, request from another physician, and the lack of standards with which to judge futility, among others. In addition to medical science factors , participants also considered non-medical science factors to determine if a treatment was futile. Almost all participants agreed that futility should be defined and that such treatments should be foregone, but they did not take a proactive stance towards this due to factors related to the healthcare worker‟s situation or the patient. Although the implications of the present study are somewhat limited, our results indicate that futile treatments are provided at multiple treatment departments. Health-care workers employ a variety of factors to determine futility, including non-medical science factors. As provision of such treatment is not always performed for reasons of patient autonomy, diverse approaches should be employed to cope with situations regarding futile treatments. (shrink)

Medicine is no stranger to patience. In fact, the word ‘patient’ has an etymology stemming from the Latin word ‘patiens’, describing the one who tolerates suffering.1 In this sense, the cornerstone of medicine, the patient–physician relationship, reflects passive language, ‘to suffer’. This suffering must be understood, and should be most intimately understood by those who provide care that is beyond a patient’s reach. The case of patients and their loved ones requesting medically futile care at the end of life is (...) one where further treatment is replaced by patience and, more rarely, the patience of medical teams is replaced by futile treatment. At the heart of this debate is not only the denial of futile care but also the need for understanding the extent of patience that must be endured as a result of it. Burns and Truog2 remark on this ethical dilemma: > The best solution – although perhaps also the most difficult – is…tolerating the demands for care that we believe to be futile, and finding ways to better support the emotional needs of each other in those rare cases where we are called on to provide this care. The concept of futility in care represents medical intervention with limited, or no, chance of resulting in what is regarded as a clinically successful outcome. Since the American Medical Association’s endorsement of the lack of consensus on futile care in 1999, this integral conflict remains.3 This is a conflict of understanding. I believe this understanding can be strengthened by acknowledging the Arabic word for patience, ‘ sabr ’, along …. (shrink)

Background and objectives: Definitions of medical futility, offered by healthcare professionals, bioethicists and other experts, have been rigorously debated by many investigators, but the perceptions of patients of futility have been explored only by a few. Patients were allowed to discuss their concerns about end-of-life care, so that their ideas about treatment futility or utility could be extrapolated by us.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, in-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with 30 elderly people who were receiving outpatient care (...) in a large, urban Veterans Affairs medical centre in the US. Each of their healthcare providers was also interviewed. Participants were asked to consider four terms commonly used in advance directive forms and to discuss what these terms meant to them. Audiotapes of the open-ended interviews were transcribed and responses were coded and categorised by constant comparison, a commonly used qualitative method.Results: The following four factors were taken into account by the participants when discussing end-of-life interventions and outcomes: expected quality of life; emotional and financial costs of treatment; likelihood of treatment success; and expected effect on longevity.Conclusions: Although the terms “utility” or “futility” were not generally used by the participants, segments of speech indicating their perceptions of these terms were identified. Treatment was not always discussed in the same way by patients and providers, but seemed to reflect the same four concerns. Therefore, it may be fruitful for providers to focus on these concerns when discussing end-of-life treatment options with their patients. (shrink)

Throughout March and April 2020, debate raged about how best to allocate limited intensive care unit resources in the face of a growing COVID-19 pandemic. The debate was dominated by utility-based arguments for saving the most lives or life-years. These arguments were tempered by equity-based concerns that triage based solely on prognosis would exacerbate existing health inequities, leaving disadvantaged patients worse off. Central to this debate was the assumption that ICU admission is a valuable but scarce resource (...) in the pandemic context.In this paper, we argue that the concern about achieving equity in ICU triage is problematic for two reasons. First, ICU can be futile and prolong or exacerbate suffering rather than ameliorate it. This may be especially true in patients with COVID-19 with emerging data showing that most who receive access to a ventilator will still die. There is no value in admitting patients with poor prognostic indicators to ICU to meet an equity target when intensive critical care is contrary to their best interests. Second, the focus on ICU admission shifts focus away from important aspects of COVID-19 care where there is greater opportunity for mitigating suffering and enhancing equitable care.We propose that the focus on equity concerns during the pandemic should broaden to include providing all people who need it with access to the highest possible standard of end-of-life care. This requires attention to culturally safe care in the following interlinked areas: palliative care, communication and decision support and advanced care planning. (shrink)

Philosophers debate how Orwell's nightmare world compares to today's world of political acrimony and discontent.

Introspective subjective reports cannot provide direct evidence that phenomenal experience overflows cognitive access. This problem for the overflow view is underappreciated in several ways: first, it places the onus on the overflow theorist to explain how sub-jective reports can be used to provide evidence for overflow. Second, it implies that there must be a true non-overflow account of subjective reports of overflow, even if there is overflow. Thus, attempting to dis-prove all anti- overflow explanations of subjective reports is futile. Third, (...) it follows that the focus of enquiry should be on unconscious processing and indirect measures of conscious awareness; this is the area where the debate may be advanced. Finally, employment of inadmissible subjective reports continues to undermine work by over-flow theorists like Bronfman et al. and Block. (shrink)

In this Critical Notice of Emily Jackson and John Keown’s Debating Euthanasia , the respective lines of argument put forward by each contributor are set out and the key debating points identified. Particular consideration is given to the points each contributor makes concerning the sanctity of human life and whether slippery slopes leading from voluntary medically assisted dying to non-voluntary euthanasia would be established if voluntary medically assisted dying were to be legalised. Finally, consideration is given to the positions adopted (...) by the contributors in relation to the legalisation of voluntary medically assisted dying. (shrink)

The development of symbolic logic is often presented in terms of a cumulative story of consecutive innovations that led to what is known as modern logic. This narrative hides the difficulties that this new logic faced at first, which shaped its history. Indeed, negative reactions to the emergence of the new logic in the second half of the nineteenth century were numerous and we study here one case, namely logic at Oxford, where one finds Lewis Carroll, a mathematical teacher who (...) promoted symbolic logic, and John Cook Wilson, the Wykeham Professor of Logic who notoriously opposed it. An analysis of their disputes on the topic of logical symbolism shows that their opposition was not as sharp as it might look at first, as Cook Wilson was not so much opposed to the « symbolic » character of logic, but the intrusion of mathematics and what he perceived to be the futility of some of its problems, for logicians and philosophers alike. (shrink)

This issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics features a special symposium on ‘elective ventilation’ . EV ) was originally described in the 1990s by doctors working in Exeter in the UK.1 At that time there was concern about the large shortfall in organs for transplantation. Patients could become organ donors if they were diagnosed as being brain dead, but this only ever occurred in patients on breathing machines in intensive care who developed signs of brainstem failure. Doctors wondered if (...) there were patients dying outside intensive care who, if they were ventilated, could become brain dead and hence eligible to donate their organs. They embarked on a process of identifying patients who were dying who would not normally be taken to intensive care because their prognosis was judged to be too poor, and then ‘electing’ to insert breathing tubes when they stopped breathing.1 With the consent of family members the patients were supported in intensive care until they were diagnosed as having signs of brain death, or until the family and doctors together judged that this was unlikely to occur.1 The Exeter team saw a 50% increase in their numbers of organs for transplantation.Box 1 Definition of elective ventilation Elective ventilation is the provision to a patient of intensive medical treatment with the sole purpose of facilitating organ donation, in the absence of an expected medical benefit.EV was a controversial practice at the time. There were a number of papers written from points of view defending2 ,3 and criticising it.4 A Department of Health guideline in 1994 concluded that EV was not in the best interests of patients and was therefore unlawful5; subsequently, the practice effectively ceased.2 However, debate about EV has not …. (shrink)

Schneiderman, Teetzel, and Gilmer offer an amusing but misleading response to my article on medical futility. Although I did make note of the falloff in citations to medical futility in Medline and Bioethicsline after 1995, my analysis focused on the precipitous rise in professional publications on the concept in the period from 1988 to 1995—a trend confirmed by the authors' own search results. I certainly did not argue, either explicitly or implicitly, that the discussion of medical futility (...) was over. I made limited use of this citation survey—to raise a question about what sparked so much professional debate after 1988. This seems to me an entirely appropriate methodology. (shrink)

Medical criteria rooted in evidence-based medicine are often seen as a value-neutral ‘trump card’ which puts paid to any further debate about setting priorities for treatment. On this argument, doctors should stop providing treatment at the point when it becomes medically futile, and that is also the threshold at which the health purchaser should stop purchasing. This paper offers three kinds of ethical criteria as a counterweight to analysis based solely on medical criteria. The first set of arguments concerns (...) futility, probability and utility; the second, justice and fairness; the third, consent and competence. The argument is illustrated by two recent case studies about futility and priority-setting: the US example of ‘Baby Ryan’ and the UK case of ‘Child B’. (shrink)