What Medical Futility Means to Clinicians

Applying futility in psychiatry: a concept whose time has come

Since its introduction in the 1980s, futility as a concept has held contested meaning and applications throughout medicine. There has been little discussion within the psychiatric literature about the use of futility in the care of individuals experiencing severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI), despite some tacit acceptance that futility may apply in certain cases of psychiatric illness. In this paper, we explore the literature surrounding futility and argue that its connotation within medicine is to describe situations where patients (or their substitute decision-makers) believe that interventions will almost certainly provide no meaningful benefit. We then provide two arguments in support of the use of futility within the care of individuals experiencing SPMI: that some SPMI can be considered a terminal illness, and that the risk-benefit ratio is a dynamic entity such that futility can help describe what Gillett calls the 'risk of unacceptable badness' when it comes to considering how an intervention might impact a patient's quality of life. We posit that capacity should not pose an obstacle to declaring futility when caring for individuals experiencing SPMI and explain how futility is not antithetical to recovery in mental health. Finally, we describe how using futility within psychiatric practice can allow for a reorientation of care by signalling the need to shift to a palliative approach.

Decisions regarding forgoing life-sustaining treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decisions to forego life-sustaining treatments are complex, and disagreements between physicians and patients occur. This review discusses recent findings regarding what factors influence physicians and patients or their surrogates in these decisions and considers whether futility arguments regarding life-sustaining treatments should be abandoned.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is one paradigm in the literature for studying end-of-life decision-making. Outcomes for cardiopulmonary resuscitation are poor, and physicians tend to over-rely on tacit versus evidence-based knowledge for resuscitation decisions. Physician decisions are often inherently biased regarding elderly and intellectually impaired patients. Patient decisions regarding life-sustaining treatments are poorly understood by physicians, and also include inherent bias against the elderly and intellectually impaired. Although patients and their decision-makers frequently incorporate religious or spiritual beliefs in their decisions, physicians rarely discuss these factors with them. Defining 'futility' is problematic, and futility arguments have limited utility in clinical end-of-life treatment discussions.

SUMMARY

Further research is needed about factors that affect both physicians and patients with regard to forgoing life-sustaining interventions. Physicians need more information regarding religious/spiritual preferences of patients and decision-makers. 'Futility' arguments in end-of-life decision-making are flawed and should probably be abandoned.

Can physicians' judgments of futility be accepted by patients? A comparative survey of Japanese physicians and laypeople

Back ground

Empirical surveys about medical futility are scarce relative to its theoretical assumptions. We aimed to evaluate the difference of attitudes between laypeople and physicians towards the issue.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was designed. Japanese laypeople (via Internet) and physicians with various specialties (via paper-and-pencil questionnaire) were asked about whether they would provide potentially futile treatments for end-of-life patients in vignettes, important factors for judging a certain treatment futile, and threshold of quantitative futility which reflects the numerical probability that an act will produce the desired physiological effect. Also, the physicians were asked about their practical frequency and important reasons for futile treatments.

Results

1134 laypeople and 401 (80%) physicians responded. In all vignettes, the laypeople were more affirmative in providing treatments in question significantly. As the factors for judging futility, medical information and quality of life (QOL) of the patient were rather stressed by the physicians. Treatment wish of the family of the patient and psychological impact on patient side due to the treatment were rather stressed by laypeople. There were wide variations in the threshold of judging quantitative futility in both groups. 88.3% of the physicians had practical experience of providing futile treatment. Important reasons for it were communication problem with patient side and lack of systems regarding futility or foregoing such treatment.

Conclusion

Laypeople are more supportive of providing potentially futile treatments than physicians. The difference is explained by the importance of medical information, the patient family’s influence to decision-making and QOL of the patient. The threshold of qualitative futility is suggested to be arbitrary.

Emergency medicine and futile care: Taking the road less travelled

Debate around medical futility has produced a vast literature that continues to grow. Largely absent from the broader literature is the role of emergency medicine in either starting measures that prove to be futile, withholding treatment or starting the end of life communication process with patients and families. In this discussion we review the status of the futility debate in general, identify some of the perceived barriers in managing futile care in the ED including the ethical and legal issues, and establish the contribution of emergency medicine in this important debate. We conclude that emergency physicians have the clinical ability and the legal and moral standing to resist providing futile treatment. In these situations they can take a different path that focuses on comfort care thereby initiating the process of the much sought after 'good death'.