The concept of futility is sometimes regarded as a cloak for medical paternalism in that it rolls together medical and value judgments. Often, despite attempts to disambiguate the concept, that is true and it can be applied in such a way as to marginalize the real interests of a patient. I suggest we replace it with a conceptual toolkit that includes physiological futility, substantial benefit (SB), and the risk of unacceptable badness (RUB) in that these concepts allow us to articulate what is at stake in ethical judgments where outcomes are crucial in determining what should be done.
Minimally conscious states Deep brain stimulation Futility Substantial benefit The RUB
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Ardagh, M. 2000. Futility has no utility in resuscitation medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 28: 396–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A.V., G. Gillett, and D.G. Jones. 2005. Medical ethics, 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, N., and G. Gillett. 2005. Nick’s story: Living with locked in syndrome (with Nick Chisholm). British Medical Journal 331: 94–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacino, J.T., et al. 2002. The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria. Neurology 58: 349–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gillett, G. 2004. Bioethics and the clinic: Hippocratic reflections. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gillett, G. 2010. Vitamin C: Ascerbic ethical discussions. Journal of Law and Medicine 18(2): 263–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar