There are many social and professional forces that kindled interest in this area of medical ethics. The principles of justice and equity suggest that common good has precedence over individual needs at least in some circumstances. Not every patient can have access to intensive care unit beds for example. So, basically the economic cause of skyrocketing health care cost is a major contributing factor to medical futility. In addition, publicized legal cases of families members demanding life-sustaining treatment for patients with permenant mental incapacitation have generated professional outrage.

Three other forces are fueling this interest:

1. The growing awareness that increased access to health care means access to 'basic' health care and constraints on 'non-basic' health care

2. The brewing conflict between patients and their physicians over conflicting physician roles and advocacy responsibility that marketplace competition is fostering.

3. The gentle swinging of the pendulum away from patient autonomy and individualism toward social and community responsibility.

What is meant by medical futility?

This varies significantly among articles. However, three terms are frequently used to define medical futility. These are physiological futility, quantitative futility, and qualitative futility. Physiological futility distinguishes between treatment having a physiological effect and that having a medical benefit to the patient. Quantitative futility refers to treatment having a rare or low likelihood of success. Qualitative futility refers to some treatments that may be successful but the resultant existent falls below some low limits of quality of life.

The obvious question that arises is why has medical futility become a battleground between physicians and patients or their families. It is because of physician's inclination to exert authority and avoid sharing uncertainty with patients.