Beneficence vs. Futility: Navigating the Ethical Complexity in ICU

 

Beneficence vs. Futility: Navigating the Ethical Complexity of Life-Sustaining Interventions in Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

In critical care settings, clinicians frequently encounter the tension between the ethical principle of beneficence and the concept of medical futility. This article examines the nuanced balance required when considering aggressive intensive care unit (ICU) interventions against likely patient outcomes. We analyze the ethical frameworks underpinning these decisions, explore objective criteria for determining futility, and discuss the integration of ethics consultation and palliative care services in ICU decision-making processes. Through analysis of current evidence and practice guidelines, we propose a multidisciplinary approach that prioritizes patient values while acknowledging the limits of medical intervention, particularly in end-of-life scenarios. This framework aims to support critical care specialists in navigating these complex ethical dilemmas while maintaining professional integrity and patient-centered care.

Keywords: medical ethics, beneficence, medical futility, critical care, end-of-life care, shared decision-making, palliative care integration

Introduction

The intensive care unit (ICU) represents the pinnacle of life-sustaining technological intervention in modern medicine. Critical care physicians routinely deploy sophisticated interventions that can maintain physiological function even when recovery seems improbable.[1] This capability has created a complex ethical landscape where the principle of beneficence—acting in the patient's best interest—may conflict with concerns about medical futility when interventions offer minimal benefit despite considerable burden.[2,3]

The determination of when aggressive treatment transitions from beneficial to futile remains one of the most challenging aspects of critical care practice. As medical technology advances, this threshold becomes increasingly difficult to define objectively.[4] Critical care specialists must balance several competing considerations: obligations to preserve life, responsibilities to prevent suffering, stewardship of limited resources, and respect for patient autonomy and values.[5]

This article examines the tension between beneficence and futility in critical care, providing an evidence-based framework for approaching these ethical dilemmas. We explore the evolution of futility concepts, propose practical approaches to ethical decision-making, and discuss the crucial role of multidisciplinary collaboration, particularly with ethics committees and palliative care specialists.

Conceptual Frameworks: Beneficence and Futility

Beneficence in Critical Care

The principle of beneficence represents a foundational ethical obligation to act for the benefit of others and prevent harm.[6] In critical care, this manifests as the imperative to deploy life-sustaining interventions when they offer reasonable hope of meaningful recovery.[7] Beauchamp and Childress position beneficence as a positive duty to help others, distinguishing it from non-maleficence (the obligation to avoid causing harm).[8]

In ICU settings, beneficence involves more than merely prolonging physiological function—it encompasses consideration of:

• Potential for recovery of meaningful function
• Quality of life assessment from the patient's perspective
• Proportionality between burdens and benefits of intervention
• Alignment with the patient's values and preferences[9,10]

Medical Futility: Evolving Definitions

The concept of medical futility has undergone significant evolution since its formal introduction into bioethical discourse in the late 1980s.[11] Initially, futility was approached through quantitative thresholds—treatments with less than a 1% chance of success were considered futile.[12] However, this approach proved inadequate for capturing the complex interplay of clinical, ethical, and personal factors.

Contemporary approaches to futility incorporate both quantitative and qualitative dimensions:[13,14]

1. Physiological futility: Interventions that cannot achieve their intended physiological effect (e.g., CPR in a patient with irreversible asystole)
2. Qualitative futility: Interventions that, while achieving a physiological effect, cannot produce a benefit meaningful to the patient's quality of life
3. Quantitative futility: Interventions with an exceedingly low probability of success based on empirical evidence
4. Cost-benefit futility: Interventions where the burdens significantly outweigh potential benefits

Schneiderman et al. proposed that treatments should be considered futile when they "merely preserve permanent unconsciousness or cannot end dependence on intensive medical care."[15] This definition acknowledges that medical intervention must serve goals beyond mere physiological maintenance.

Clinical Determination of Futility

Prognostication Challenges

Accurate prognostication remains a significant challenge in critical care, complicating futility determinations.[16] Even with sophisticated scoring systems like APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and SOFA, individual outcome prediction carries substantial uncertainty.[17,18] A systematic review by Hallen et al. found that while these scoring systems perform well at a population level, their application to individual patients may lack precision.[19]

Certain clinical scenarios offer more definitive prognostic clarity:[20,21]

• Refractory multi-organ failure progression despite maximal support
• Advanced malignancy unresponsive to available therapies
• Persistent vegetative state or severe anoxic brain injury without improvement
• End-stage organ failure without transplant candidacy

Yet even in these scenarios, rare cases of unexpected recovery occur, reinforcing the inherent uncertainty in prognostication.[22]

Evidence-Based Approaches to Futility Assessment

Several evidence-based frameworks have emerged to guide futility assessments in critical care:[23,24]

1. Time-limited trials: Defining specific timeframes and clinical markers to evaluate response to intensive interventions, with predetermined reassessment points[25]
2. Sequential organ failure assessment: Tracking multiple organ systems to identify irreversible deterioration despite maximal support[26]
3. Disease-specific trajectories: Recognizing patterns of decline in specific conditions (e.g., end-stage heart failure, advanced COPD)[27]
4. Frailty and pre-morbid function assessment: Incorporating validated measures like the Clinical Frailty Scale to contextualize critical illness within a patient's overall health trajectory[28,29]

Curtis et al. demonstrated that implementing structured communication protocols based on these approaches improved alignment between care provided and patient preferences while reducing non-beneficial interventions.[30]

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

Procedural Approach to Resolving Conflicts

When disagreements arise regarding treatment futility, a procedural approach offers structure for resolution:[31,32]

1. Clarify goals of care: Establish the patient's values and preferences through discussion with the patient (if possible) or surrogate decision-makers
2. Medical consensus: Develop consensus among the treating team regarding prognosis and appropriate interventions
3. Ethics consultation: Engage ethics committee input when conflicts persist
4. Transfer of care: Consider allowing transfer to providers willing to provide requested interventions when disagreements cannot be resolved
5. Judicial review: As a last resort, seek legal guidance when irreconcilable conflicts remain

The Texas Advance Directives Act provides one legislative model for resolving medical futility disputes through a formal process, though its implementation remains controversial.[33,34]

Shared Decision-Making Models

Shared decision-making represents the gold standard for navigating beneficence-futility tensions.[35,36] This approach acknowledges the complementary expertise that clinicians and patients/surrogates bring to decision-making:

• Clinicians contribute medical knowledge, prognostic information, and treatment options
• Patients/surrogates contribute personal values, quality-of-life considerations, and goals

White et al. developed the "multiprinciple approach" that balances three key considerations:[37]

1. Patient autonomy (what the patient wants)
2. Best interest standard (what would benefit the patient)
3. Resource stewardship (societal considerations)

This framework emphasizes that while patient preferences remain central, they exist within clinical and societal contexts that may appropriately limit interventions when futility thresholds are crossed.

Role of Ethics Consultation Services

Timing and Indications

Ethics consultation services offer valuable support in navigating beneficence-futility tensions.[38] Evidence suggests that early ethics involvement is associated with:[39,40]

• Reduced moral distress among clinicians
• More timely transition to palliative approaches when appropriate
• Better alignment between care provided and patient values
• Reduced conflicts between treatment teams and families

Schneiderman et al. demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial that ethics consultation in ICU conflicts resulted in reduced hospital days and life-sustaining treatments without affecting mortality, particularly for patients who ultimately did not survive their hospitalization.[41]

Key indications for ethics consultation include:[42]

• Persistent disagreement about appropriate goals of care
• Requests for interventions deemed medically inappropriate
• Absence of surrogate decision-makers or unclear decision-making authority
• Concerns about decision-maker's ability to represent patient's best interests

Ethics Committee Structure and Function

Effective ethics consultation services typically employ multidisciplinary committees including:[43,44]

• Critical care physicians
• Nurses
• Ethicists
• Social workers
• Chaplains/spiritual care providers
• Legal counsel (as needed)

These committees function through several models:[45]

1. Full committee: Entire ethics committee reviews complex cases
2. Small team: Subset of committee members provide timely consultation
3. Individual consultant: Single ethics expert provides guidance

Regardless of model, effective ethics consultation requires well-defined processes, standardized documentation, and quality assessment measures to ensure consistency and transparency.[46]

Integration of Palliative Care in Critical Care

Early Palliative Care Integration

The integration of palliative care into critical care represents a paradigm shift from the traditional binary view that positioned palliative care as the alternative to aggressive intervention.[47] Contemporary approaches recognize that palliative principles can complement life-sustaining treatments, operating on a continuum rather than mutually exclusive paths.[48,49]

Evidence from multiple studies demonstrates that early palliative care integration in the ICU is associated with:[50-52]

• Improved symptom management
• Enhanced family satisfaction with care
• Reduced length of stay for patients who ultimately die in the ICU
• Decreased moral distress among clinicians

The IPAL-ICU (Improving Palliative Care in the ICU) project has developed guidelines for "trigger-based" models that automatically activate palliative care consultation based on specific clinical criteria, ensuring timely involvement.[53]

Palliative Care Skills for Critical Care Clinicians

While specialist palliative care consultation is valuable, basic palliative skills represent core competencies for all critical care clinicians.[54] These include:

1. Communication skills: Conducting family meetings, discussing prognosis, exploring goals of care
2. Symptom management: Addressing pain, dyspnea, delirium, and other distressing symptoms
3. End-of-life care: Managing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments with dignity
4. Bereavement support: Providing initial support to families experiencing loss

The Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society have published core competencies for end-of-life care in the ICU, emphasizing these skills as fundamental rather than optional for critical care specialists.[55,56]

Legal and Institutional Considerations

Legal Framework for Futility Determinations

Legal approaches to medical futility vary considerably across jurisdictions.[57] While courts have generally been reluctant to override physician judgment regarding futile interventions, legal precedent remains inconsistent.[58] Several jurisdictions have enacted legislation addressing futility disputes:[59]

• Texas Advance Directives Act: Provides a procedural resolution mechanism when physicians seek to withdraw life-sustaining treatment deemed medically inappropriate
• Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act: Adopted in various forms by multiple states, allowing physicians to decline to provide interventions deemed ineffective
• Hospital policies: Many institutions have developed internal policies defining processes for resolving futility disputes, often incorporating ethics committee review

Pope's comprehensive review of futility cases found that courts increasingly recognize that "neither patient autonomy nor physician professional integrity is absolute," suggesting an emerging balanced approach to resolving these conflicts.[60]

Institutional Policies and Procedures

Institutional policies provide essential structure for addressing beneficence-futility tensions.[61] Effective policies typically include:[62,63]

1. Clear definitions: Explaining how the institution conceptualizes medical futility
2. Step-wise approach: Outlining procedures for conflict resolution
3. Ethics committee role: Defining the consultation process and committee authority
4. Transfer provisions: Establishing procedures when transfer to willing providers is sought
5. Documentation requirements: Standardizing how futility determinations are recorded

Truog et al. emphasize that policies should focus on fair process rather than rigid definitions of futility, recommending "procedural approaches that focus on communication and negotiation."[64]

Practical Applications and Case Examples

Case 1: Progressive Multi-Organ Failure

An 83-year-old woman with end-stage renal disease, severe COPD, and recent stroke develops septic shock requiring vasopressor support, mechanical ventilation, and continuous renal replacement therapy. Despite maximal intervention, she demonstrates progressive multi-organ failure over seven days with no improvement. The family insists "everything be done" as they await a "miracle."

Application of Framework:

1. Prognostication: Multiple validated scoring systems indicate >90% mortality
2. Goals clarification: Exploration reveals family's definition of "everything" focuses on comfort and dignity rather than technological intervention
3. Palliative integration: Early palliative care consultation helps address symptom management while discussions continue
4. Ethics involvement: Ethics committee facilitates a family conference to establish consensus on transitioning to comfort-focused care
5. Outcome: Transition to comfort measures with family support; patient dies peacefully with symptoms well-controlled

Case 2: Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

A 45-year-old previously healthy man suffers severe traumatic brain injury with diffuse axonal injury. After 14 days, he shows no improvement in neurological status, remains comatose with absent brainstem reflexes, and requires full ventilatory support. Neurologists indicate extremely poor prognosis but cannot guarantee non-recovery. No advance directives exist, and family members disagree about appropriate next steps.

Application of Framework:

1. Time-limited trial: Agreement to continue full support for defined period (additional 7 days) with specific assessment criteria
2. Multidisciplinary input: Neurocritical care, ethics, palliative care, and spiritual care providers participate in family meetings
3. Surrogate consensus building: Focused discussions about patient's previously expressed values and quality-of-life considerations
4. Outcome: Family reaches consensus on transitioning to tracheostomy/PEG with transfer to long-term care facility while accepting DNR status

Conclusion

The tension between beneficence and futility remains an inescapable aspect of critical care practice. While technological advances have expanded our capability to sustain physiological function, they have not simplified the ethical complexities of determining when such interventions serve patient interests. Rather than seeking rigid definitions of futility, a process-oriented approach emphasizing communication, shared decision-making, and multidisciplinary collaboration offers the most promising path forward.

Critical care specialists must develop expertise not only in deploying life-sustaining technologies but also in recognizing their limits. Integration of ethics consultation and palliative care services represents best practice rather than an admission of failure. By embracing this comprehensive approach, critical care medicine can fulfill its highest purpose: providing care aligned with patient values, even when cure remains beyond reach.

Future research should focus on developing more precise prognostic tools, standardizing approaches to time-limited trials, and evaluating outcomes of procedural approaches to futility determinations. As critical care continues to advance technologically, its ethical foundations must evolve in parallel, ensuring that beneficence remains the guiding principle in decisions regarding life-sustaining interventions.

References

1. Angus DC, Barnato AE, Linde-Zwirble WT, et al. Use of intensive care at the end of life in the United States: an epidemiologic study. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):638-643.

2. Truog RD, White DB. Futile treatments in intensive care units. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(20):1894-1895.

3. Bosslet GT, Pope TM, Rubenfeld GD, et al. An Official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(11):1318-1330.

4. Wilkinson DJ, Savulescu J. Knowing when to stop: futility in the ICU. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24(2):160-165.

5. Kon AA, Shepard EK, Sederstrom NO, et al. Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(9):1769-1774.

6. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. Oxford University Press; 2019.

7. Bernat JL. Medical futility: definition, determination, and disputes in critical care. Neurocrit Care. 2005;2(2):198-205.

8. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. Oxford University Press; 2019:202-248.

9. Curtis JR, Vincent JL. Ethics and end-of-life care for adults in the intensive care unit. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1347-1353.

10. Scheunemann LP, White DB. The ethics and reality of rationing in medicine. Chest. 2011;140(6):1625-1632.

11. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR. Medical futility: its meaning and ethical implications. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(12):949-954.

12. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS. Wrong Medicine: Doctors, Patients, and Futile Treatment. 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press; 2011.

13. Swetz KM, Burkle CM, Berge KH, Lanier WL. Ten common questions (and their answers) on medical futility. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(7):943-959.

14. Nates JL, Nunnally M, Kleinpell R, et al. ICU Admission, Discharge, and Triage Guidelines: A Framework to Enhance Clinical Operations, Development of Institutional Policies, and Further Research. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(8):1553-1602.

15. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR. Medical futility: response to critiques. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(8):669-674.

16. White DB, Ernecoff N, Buddadhumaruk P, et al. Prevalence of and Factors Related to Discordance About Prognosis Between Physicians and Surrogate Decision Makers of Critically Ill Patients. JAMA. 2016;315(19):2086-2094.

17. Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today's critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(5):1297-1310.

18. Moreno RP, Metnitz PG, Almeida E, et al. SAPS 3--From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(10):1345-1355.

19. Hallen SAM, Haines KJ, Hibbert PD, et al. Reliability of the APACHE II, SAPS II, SOFA and MODS scoring systems in critically ill patients. J Int Med Res. 2022;50(3):03000605221077353.

20. Creutzfeldt CJ, Becker KJ, Weinstein JR, et al. Do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders and prognostic models for intraparenchymal hemorrhage. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(1):158-162.

21. Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Bensink ME, Ramsey SD. End-of-life care in the intensive care unit: can we simultaneously increase quality and reduce costs? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(7):587-592.

22. Zier LS, Burack JH, Micco G, et al. Doubt and belief in physicians' ability to prognosticate during critical illness: the perspective of surrogate decision makers. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(8):2341-2347.

23. Rubin EB, Buehler AE, Halpern SD. States Worse Than Death Among Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(10):1557-1559.

24. Gill TM, Gahbauer EA, Han L, Allore HG. Trajectories of disability in the last year of life. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1173-1180.

25. Vink EE, Azoulay E, Caplan A, et al. Time-limited trial of intensive care treatment: an overview of current literature. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(9):1369-1377.

26. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707-710.

27. Lynn J, Adamson DM. Living Well at the End of Life. Adapting Health Care to Serious Chronic Illness in Old Age. Rand Health; 2003.

28. Muscedere J, Waters B, Varambally A, et al. The impact of frailty on intensive care unit outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(8):1105-1122.

29. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173(5):489-495.

30. Curtis JR, Back AL, Ford DW, et al. Effect of communication skills training for residents and nurse practitioners on quality of communication with patients with serious illness: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310(21):2271-2281.

31. Bosslet GT, Pope TM, Rubenfeld GD, et al. An Official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191(11):1318-1330.

32. Truog RD, Campbell ML, Curtis JR, et al. Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(3):953-963.

33. Pope TM. Legal briefing: medical futility and assisted suicide. J Clin Ethics. 2009;20(3):274-286.

34. Smith ML, Gremillion G, Slomka J, Warneke CL. Texas hospitals' experience with the Texas Advance Directives Act. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(5):1271-1276.

35. White DB, Braddock CH 3rd, Bereknyei S, Curtis JR. Toward shared decision making at the end of life in intensive care units: opportunities for improvement. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(5):461-467.

36. Kon AA. The shared decision-making continuum. JAMA. 2010;304(8):903-904.

37. White DB, Malvar G, Karr J, Lo B, Curtis JR. Expanding the paradigm of the physician's role in surrogate decision-making: an empirically derived framework. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):743-750.

38. DeLisser HM. A practical approach to the family that expects a miracle. Chest. 2009;135(6):1643-1647.

39. Chen EK, Riffin C, Reid MC, et al. Why is high-quality research on palliative care so hard to do? Barriers to improved research from a survey of palliative care researchers. J Palliat Med. 2014;17(7):782-787.

40. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD, et al. Effect of ethics consultations on nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care setting: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(9):1166-1172.

41. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD. Impact of ethics consultations in the intensive care setting: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(12):3920-3924.

42. Fox E, Myers S, Pearlman RA. Ethics consultation in United States hospitals: a national survey. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(2):13-25.

43. Aulisio MP, Arnold RM, Youngner SJ; Society for Health and Human Values-Society for Bioethics Consultation Task Force on Standards for Bioethics Consultation. Health care ethics consultation: nature, goals, and competencies. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(1):59-69.

44. Tarzian AJ; ASBH Core Competencies Update Task Force. Health care ethics consultation: an update on core competencies and emerging standards from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities' Core Competencies Update Task Force. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(2):3-13.

45. Fox E, Bottrell MM, Berkowitz KA, et al. IntegratedEthics: an innovative program to improve ethics quality in health care. Innov J. 2010;15(2):1-36.

46. Pearlman RA, Foglia MB, Fox E, et al. Ethics consultation quality assessment tool: a novel method for assessing the quality of ethics case consultations based on written records. Am J Bioeth. 2016;16(3):3-14.

47. Aslakson RA, Curtis JR, Nelson JE. The changing role of palliative care in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(11):2418-2428.

48. Nelson JE, Bassett R, Boss RD, et al. Models for structuring a clinical initiative to enhance palliative care in the intensive care unit: a report from the IPAL-ICU Project (Improving Palliative Care in the ICU). Crit Care Med. 2010;38(9):1765-1772.

49. Quill TE, Abernethy AP. Generalist plus specialist palliative care--creating a more sustainable model. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1173-1175.

50. Gade G, Venohr I, Conner D, et al. Impact of an inpatient palliative care team: a randomized control trial. J Palliat Med. 2008;11(2):180-190.

51. Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469-478.

52. O'Mahony S, McHenry J, Blank AE, et al. Preliminary report of the integration of a palliative care team into an intensive care unit. Palliat Med. 2010;24(2):154-165.

53. Weissman DE, Meier DE. Identifying patients in need of a palliative care assessment in the hospital setting: a consensus report from the Center to Advance Palliative Care. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(1):17-23.

54. Mularski RA, Curtis JR, Billings JA, et al. Proposed quality measures for palliative care in the critically ill: a consensus from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Critical Care Workgroup. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(11 Suppl):S404-S411.

55. Davidson JE, Aslakson RA, Long AC, et al. Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(1):103-128.

56. Lanken PN, Terry PB, Delisser HM, et al. An official American Thoracic Society clinical policy statement: palliative care for patients with respiratory diseases and critical illnesses. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177(8):912-927.

57. Pope TM. The Texas Advance Directives Act: Must a Death Panel Be a Star Chamber? Chest. 2020;158(5):1833-1834.

58. Pope TM. Medical Futility Statutes: No Safe Harbor to Unilaterally Refuse Life-Sustaining Treatment. Tenn L Rev. 2007;75:1-81.

59. Pope TM. Legal Briefing: New Penalties for Disregarding Advance Directives and Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders. J Clin Ethics. 2017;28(1):74-81.

60. Pope TM. Medical futility: a concept in evolution. Chest. 2020;158(5):2023-2027.

61. Truog RD. Tackling Medical Futility in Texas. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):1-3.

62. Halevy A, Brody BA. A multi-institution collaborative policy on medical futility. JAMA. 1996;276(7):571-574.

63. Capozzi JD, Rhodes R, Chen D. Teaching medical ethics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(10):2522-2525.

64. Truog RD, Brett AS, Frader J. The problem with futility. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(23):1560-1564.