Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Addressing ‘futility’ in psychiatry: a consensus statement

  • Brent Michael Kious*
  • , Sarah Levitt
  • , Sisco Van Veen
  • , Daniel Buchman
  • , Lucy Costa
  • , Katharina Froelich
  • , Paul Hoff
  • , Anna Lindblad
  • , Suzanne Metselaar
  • , Loïc Moureau
  • , Gerald Neitzke
  • , Thaddeus Mason Pope
  • , Heidi Schenker
  • , Julia Strupp
  • , Manuel Trachsel
  • , Anna Lisa Westermair
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Utah
  • Department of Psychiatry
  • University of Toronto
  • Empowerment Council
  • Clinical Ethics Unit
  • University of Basel
  • Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften
  • Department of Learning
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • KU Leuven
  • Institute for Ethics
  • Hannover Medical School
  • Mitchell Hamline School of Law
  • Praxis SULA-SUN
  • Department of Palliative Medicine
  • University of Cologne
  • Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine
  • University of Zurich

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review

35 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

While the concept of futility has been used widely in somatic medicine, to date, there has been limited consideration of its relevance to psychiatry. We summarize the findings of an international, multidisciplinary workshop involving clinicians, ethicists, philosophers, patient advocates, and persons with lived experience, which was focused on describing futility in psychiatry and developing ethical guidelines for making futility judgments. We outline three leading concepts of futility as they have been used in somatic medicine: physiological futility, quantitative futility, and qualitative futility. We examine the application of these concepts to the care of persons with mental illness, finding that the notion of qualitative futility is most likely to be fruitful. We consider how the concept of qualitative futility in psychiatry could relate to other ethically salient concepts such as terminal mental illness and recovery. We consider (1) who should have authority to make futility judgments in psychiatry (i.e. patients, providers, others), (2) what the process for introducing and evaluating futility judgments should be, and (3) how futility assessments should respond to patients’ goals and values. We identify potential risks of futility assessments, including psychological harms and premature treatment discontinuation, as well as potential benefits, such as reductions in harmful treatments and helpful reevaluation of the goals of care. Workshop participants regarded the concept of psychiatric futility as potentially useful. They identified how the concept could be applied to psychiatric care, as well as ethical limits on doing so.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere16
JournalPsychological medicine
Volume56
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Jan 2026

Keywords

  • ethics
  • euthanasia
  • futility
  • medical aid in dying
  • palliative care
  • psychiatry
  • terminal mental illness

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Addressing ‘futility’ in psychiatry: a consensus statement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this