To the Editor: We share the sentiments of Murphy’s article in the 7 April issue of the Journal.1 As intensive care physicians, the issue of futile care is an almost daily consideration. We agree with his assertion that “the community looks to the (senior) medical practitioners for the security they need to accept decisions of great moment, such as withholding futile treatment”.1

It is common for a referral to an intensive care unit to be made because “We asked the family, and they want everything done”. This is the least confrontational manner of “sorting out the resuscitation status” with the next of kin. Unfortunately, it shifts end-of-life decision making to others, particularly the family in crisis.

This places additional stress on an already stressful situation. It often results in undignified, ultimately futile medical interventions and prolongation of dying. It is also a potential pastoral and mental health disaster for families. It is our duty of care to such patients to minimise the iatrogenic damage to their families by having senior clinicians communicate which therapies are appropriate, and thereby help families accept the likely prognosis. Ethically, we believe doctors should not harm families in crisis.

Establishing when treatment is futile is difficult. The decision is often qualitative, with differing thresholds for futility. Personal and religious beliefs and anecdotal experience all affect the ability of a clinician to determine when a therapy is futile.

We believe it is the duty of the clinician who performs an intervention, not the referring clinician, to determine its utility. A patient should not be referred to an intensive care unit if the intensivist believes the multitude of life-supporting therapies are not of clear benefit. If initiated, the intensivist should determine when such therapies are no longer of benefit. A framework for debate and review of contentious cases should be established within institutions as a matter of process.

Sadly, intensive care units are increasingly seen as locations for palliative care. When a patient dies, it is unreasonable for referring clinicians to claim a clear conscience by saying “we did everything we could”, when the outcome is a prolonged, undignified death in an intensive care unit. Such deaths are not just wasteful of resources, but cause unnecessary distress to patients, their families and staff who care for them.

We must not mistake “treating” our patients for “caring” for them. Doctors should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

To the Editor: Congratulations to Murphy1 for raising the important and sensitive issue of when to stop trying. This is an issue that needs to be discussed more widely in the community and in hospitals, and presented sensitively to all health students.

We know that a significant proportion of the health dollar is spent on the last 12 months of life,2 but, more importantly (as Murphy points out), a clear decision, discussed openly with patients and their families, can save significant pain — both physical and emotional — to all concerned. Advance treatment orders can aid decision making in these situations, but need to be backed up with support for patients’ families when they are to be followed.

This issue is with us now but will become more widespread in the future. Health professionals need to be well schooled in this important area of caring. We have to understand when to cease the desire to keep a patient alive. Modern health care has provided incredible advances but we are still not good at knowing and being “strong” in our beliefs and behaviour about when to stop.

To the Editor: In the 7 April issue of the Journal, Murphy encouraged the medical profession to be more proactive about discussing end-of-life care options with family members (or next of kin) with a view to withholding care that may be considered futile by the clinical team.1

While we agree that it is important to offer advice about what course of action the clinical team recommends in a particular case, it is equally important that this advice be based on good evidence and sound clinical judgement. This can be difficult, even for experienced clinicians.

Further, it is unwise to leave the family without any alternative but to accept that advice, because this can lead to distrust and disagreement between the family and the treating team. This is not a matter of acquiescing to a family’s unrealistic expectations — often the prognosis is not clear-cut, and there are times when a planned but limited trial of therapy is warranted. In complex situations, the prognosis often becomes obvious, and families can and do draw comfort from the fact that every effort was made, and are then more willing to accept limitation or withdrawal of therapy.

In the case of withholding cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the treating team has sole responsibility for the medical opinion, but the family should be involved in the final decision and not have it enforced unilaterally.