The illusion of futility in clinical practice

John D. Lantos, Peter A. Singer, Robert M. Walker, Gregory P. Gramelspacher, Gary R. Shapiro, Miguel A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, Carol B. Stocking, Steven H Miles, Mark Siegler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

193 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The claim that a treatment is futile is often used to justify a shift in the physician's ethical obligations to patients. In clinical situations in which non-futile treatments are available, the physician has an obligation to discuss therapeutic alternatives with the patient. By contrast, a physician is under no obligation to offer, or even to discuss, futile therapies. This shift is supported by moral reasoning in ancient and modern medical ethics, by public policy, and by case law. Given this shift in ethical obligations, one might expect that physicians would have unambiguous criteria for determining when a therapy is futile. This is not the case. Rather than being a discrete and definable entity, futile therapy is merely the end of the spectrum of therapies with very low efficacy. Ambiguity in determining futility, arising from linguistic errors, from statistical misinterpretations, and from disagreements about the goals of therapy, undermines the force of futility claims. Decisions to withhold therapy that is deemed futile, like all treatment choices, must follow both clinical judgments about the chance of success of a therapy and an explicit consideration of the patient's goals for therapy. Futility claims rarely should be used to justify a radical shift in ethical obligations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)81-84
Number of pages4
JournalThe American Journal of Medicine
Volume87
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1989

Fingerprint

Medical Futility
Therapeutics
Physicians
Medical Ethics
Public Policy
Linguistics

Cite this

Lantos, J. D., Singer, P. A., Walker, R. M., Gramelspacher, G. P., Shapiro, G. R., Sanchez-Gonzalez, M. A., ... Siegler, M. (1989). The illusion of futility in clinical practice. The American Journal of Medicine, 87(1), 81-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80487-5

The illusion of futility in clinical practice. / Lantos, John D.; Singer, Peter A.; Walker, Robert M.; Gramelspacher, Gregory P.; Shapiro, Gary R.; Sanchez-Gonzalez, Miguel A.; Stocking, Carol B.; Miles, Steven H; Siegler, Mark.

In: The American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 87, No. 1, 01.01.1989, p. 81-84.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lantos, JD, Singer, PA, Walker, RM, Gramelspacher, GP, Shapiro, GR, Sanchez-Gonzalez, MA, Stocking, CB, Miles, SH & Siegler, M 1989, 'The illusion of futility in clinical practice', The American Journal of Medicine, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 81-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80487-5
Lantos JD, Singer PA, Walker RM, Gramelspacher GP, Shapiro GR, Sanchez-Gonzalez MA et al. The illusion of futility in clinical practice. The American Journal of Medicine. 1989 Jan 1;87(1):81-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80487-5
Lantos, John D. ; Singer, Peter A. ; Walker, Robert M. ; Gramelspacher, Gregory P. ; Shapiro, Gary R. ; Sanchez-Gonzalez, Miguel A. ; Stocking, Carol B. ; Miles, Steven H ; Siegler, Mark. / The illusion of futility in clinical practice. In: The American Journal of Medicine. 1989 ; Vol. 87, No. 1. pp. 81-84.
@article{8de333f825fa4ce5b9a4f87e8df79b9c,
title = "The illusion of futility in clinical practice",
abstract = "The claim that a treatment is futile is often used to justify a shift in the physician's ethical obligations to patients. In clinical situations in which non-futile treatments are available, the physician has an obligation to discuss therapeutic alternatives with the patient. By contrast, a physician is under no obligation to offer, or even to discuss, futile therapies. This shift is supported by moral reasoning in ancient and modern medical ethics, by public policy, and by case law. Given this shift in ethical obligations, one might expect that physicians would have unambiguous criteria for determining when a therapy is futile. This is not the case. Rather than being a discrete and definable entity, futile therapy is merely the end of the spectrum of therapies with very low efficacy. Ambiguity in determining futility, arising from linguistic errors, from statistical misinterpretations, and from disagreements about the goals of therapy, undermines the force of futility claims. Decisions to withhold therapy that is deemed futile, like all treatment choices, must follow both clinical judgments about the chance of success of a therapy and an explicit consideration of the patient's goals for therapy. Futility claims rarely should be used to justify a radical shift in ethical obligations.",
author = "Lantos, {John D.} and Singer, {Peter A.} and Walker, {Robert M.} and Gramelspacher, {Gregory P.} and Shapiro, {Gary R.} and Sanchez-Gonzalez, {Miguel A.} and Stocking, {Carol B.} and Miles, {Steven H} and Mark Siegler",
year = "1989",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80487-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "87",
pages = "81--84",
journal = "American Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0002-9343",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The illusion of futility in clinical practice

AU - Lantos, John D.

AU - Singer, Peter A.

AU - Walker, Robert M.

AU - Gramelspacher, Gregory P.

AU - Shapiro, Gary R.

AU - Sanchez-Gonzalez, Miguel A.

AU - Stocking, Carol B.

AU - Miles, Steven H

AU - Siegler, Mark

PY - 1989/1/1

Y1 - 1989/1/1

N2 - The claim that a treatment is futile is often used to justify a shift in the physician's ethical obligations to patients. In clinical situations in which non-futile treatments are available, the physician has an obligation to discuss therapeutic alternatives with the patient. By contrast, a physician is under no obligation to offer, or even to discuss, futile therapies. This shift is supported by moral reasoning in ancient and modern medical ethics, by public policy, and by case law. Given this shift in ethical obligations, one might expect that physicians would have unambiguous criteria for determining when a therapy is futile. This is not the case. Rather than being a discrete and definable entity, futile therapy is merely the end of the spectrum of therapies with very low efficacy. Ambiguity in determining futility, arising from linguistic errors, from statistical misinterpretations, and from disagreements about the goals of therapy, undermines the force of futility claims. Decisions to withhold therapy that is deemed futile, like all treatment choices, must follow both clinical judgments about the chance of success of a therapy and an explicit consideration of the patient's goals for therapy. Futility claims rarely should be used to justify a radical shift in ethical obligations.

AB - The claim that a treatment is futile is often used to justify a shift in the physician's ethical obligations to patients. In clinical situations in which non-futile treatments are available, the physician has an obligation to discuss therapeutic alternatives with the patient. By contrast, a physician is under no obligation to offer, or even to discuss, futile therapies. This shift is supported by moral reasoning in ancient and modern medical ethics, by public policy, and by case law. Given this shift in ethical obligations, one might expect that physicians would have unambiguous criteria for determining when a therapy is futile. This is not the case. Rather than being a discrete and definable entity, futile therapy is merely the end of the spectrum of therapies with very low efficacy. Ambiguity in determining futility, arising from linguistic errors, from statistical misinterpretations, and from disagreements about the goals of therapy, undermines the force of futility claims. Decisions to withhold therapy that is deemed futile, like all treatment choices, must follow both clinical judgments about the chance of success of a therapy and an explicit consideration of the patient's goals for therapy. Futility claims rarely should be used to justify a radical shift in ethical obligations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024337688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024337688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80487-5

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9343(89)80487-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 2741985

AN - SCOPUS:0024337688

VL - 87

SP - 81

EP - 84

JO - American Journal of Medicine

JF - American Journal of Medicine

SN - 0002-9343

IS - 1

ER -