Advances in Medical Ethics
Open Access

Effect of Expected Disagreement on Medically Futile End-Of-Life Therapy Thresholds

Lynne Jason^{* *}Correspondence: Lynne Jason, Department of Medical Affairs, University of Texas, Austin, USA, Email:

Author info »

Description

The idea of medical futility may be used by doctors to support their decision not to pursue particular treatments that may have been desired or requested by patients or surrogates. The suggested therapy should not be carried out since the current data indicate that it will not improve the patient's medical state, which is referred to as medical futility. For a number of reasons, medical futility is still morally debatable. Without having access to the pertinent outcome data, some doctors make sweeping claims that a treatment is ineffective. Regarding the statistical cutoff point at which a treatment is deemed ineffective, there is disagreement. Physicians and families frequently dispute strongly over the advantages of patient continuation of care. Medical futility has been characterized as a battle between patients and surrogates for decision-making power. Medical futility disputes are best avoided by methods that enhance communication between doctors and surrogates, encourage doctors to give families precise, up-to-date, and frequent prognostic estimates, ensure that doctors take into account the emotional needs of the family and try to understand the issue from the family's perspective, and support excellent palliative care throughout the illness. Critical care physicians can assist hospital policymakers in creating hospital futility policies that provide a fair procedure for resolving disputes and embrace an ethic of care, as well as encourage the formulation of state laws accepting futility issues.

In order to make decisions about a patient's health care, clinicians and other healthcare professionals may need to rely on a more limited of futile care. This definition frequently focuses on an assessment of the likelihood that a patient could physically recover as a result of treatment, or the likelihood that such treatment would be able to alleviate a patient's suffering. A doctor has an ethical and professional obligation to refuse to administer a particular medical treatment if they come to the conclusion that it is ineffective due to a violation of the principles of beneficence and justice after carefully considering the patient's medical condition, values, and goals. In the 1980s, the precise term "futility" first arose in medical ethics. The theory was that problems would be resolved if doctors declared a specific course of therapy to be "futile." It wouldn't be paternalistic for doctors to decline to offer ineffective treatment because they were under no obligation.

There are two types of medical futility that are frequently distinguished: quantitative futility, where there is a very low possibility that a treatment will benefit the patient, and exceptionally low-quality benefits that an intervention will create are referred to be qualitative futility.

When executing interventions and treatments that could save a patient's life while using a considerable amount of resources has no potential to improve the patient's quality of life and cannot reduce the patient's reliance on medical care, this is referred to as providing "futile care." Health experts frequently use the term "medical futility" to describe the suitability of a particular medical treatment choice. In addition to Texas having created a state-wide futility policy, hospitals and nursing facilities are increasingly creating their own futility policies. The term futility raises a number of bioethical questions, as well as suggestions from the American Medical Association (AMA) on how to address medical futility difficulties.

Despite these issues with the idea of medical futility, many large organizations advise that healthcare institutions adopt a clear policy that outlines a fair procedure for handling disputes involving medical futility and offers clinicians options as well as patient protections in situations where continuing life-prolonging treatments have no medical benefit. For a number of reasons, medical futility is still morally debatable. Without having access to the pertinent outcome data, some doctors make sweeping claims that a treatment is ineffective. Regarding the statistical cutoff point at which a treatment is deemed ineffective, there is disagreement. Physicians and families frequently dispute strongly over the advantages of patient continuation of care. Medical futility has been characterized as a battle between patients and surrogates for decision-making power. Medical futility disputes are best avoided by methods that enhance communication between doctors and surrogates, encourage doctors to give families precise, up-to-date, and frequent prognostic estimates, ensure that doctors take into account the emotional needs of the family and try to understand the issue from the family's perspective, and support excellent palliative care throughout the illness. Critical care physicians can assist hospital policymakers in creating hospital futility policies that provide a fair procedure for resolving disputes and embrace an ethic of care, as well as encourage the formulation of state laws accepting futility issues.