Debating Medical Utility, Not Futility: Ethical Dilemmas in Treating Critically Ill People Who Use Injection Drugs

Futility considerations in surgical ethics

The topic of futility has been intensely debated in bioethical discourse. Surgical futility encompasses considerations across a continuum of care, from decision-making during initial triage, to the choice to operate or refrain from operating on the critically ill, to withdrawal of life-supporting care. Determinations over futility may result in discord between providers and patients or their families, who might insist that treatment be provided at all costs to sustain life. In this manuscript, we will explore some of the possible sources for and manifestations of these disputes, and describe approaches by which to resolve them. Part I will briefly address some of the reasons that families ask for life-sustaining measures against medical advice in the surgical setting. These include variable determinations of both the quality of life and the inherent value of life (stemming from religious, cultural, and personal beliefs). Part II will detail some general instances in which physicians and surgeons can override requests to provide futile treatment, namely: instances of resource scarcity, interventions which carry a high probability of harm, and those that carry significant moral distress. To conclude, Part III will provide concrete guidelines for navigating futility, making an argument for individual case-based communication models in surgical decision-making.

Addressing Futility: A Practical Approach

Limiting or withdrawing nonbeneficial medical care is considered ethically responsible throughout most of critical care and medical ethics literature. Practically, however, setting limits to treatment is often challenging. We review the literature to identify best practices for using the definition of futility as an anchoring concept to aid the ethical practice of ICU clinicians.

Principlist approach to multiple heart valve replacements for patients with intravenous drug use-induced endocarditis

Medical professionals often deny patients who inject opioids a second or third heart valve replacement, even if such a surgery is medically indicated. However, such a position is not well defended. As this paper demonstrates, the ethical literature on the topic too often fails to develop and apply an ethical lens to analyse the issue of multiple valve replacements. This paper addresses this lacuna by analysing the case of Mr Walsh, a composite case which protects the identity of any one patient, through the principlist approach of Beauchamp and Childress. It argues that the hospital should offer Mr Walsh, a second valve replacement because the procedure is: medically indicated, autonomously requested, non-maleficent, beneficent and does not violate a formal account of justice. The paper concludes with clinical ethical guidelines for valve surgery for patients with opioid use disorder.