A Futile Use of Futility.

As the rates of intravenous opioid use have increased, so have its associated medical complications, such as endocarditis, and known interventions, such as heart-valve replacements. For many patients, including Jacob, whose case was brought to my psychiatric consult service and to my colleagues in the clinical ethics service, relapse increases the risk of repeat endocarditis and the need for repeat surgical interventions. Previous works have posed the bioethical quandary regarding the responsibilities of a surgeon in these repeat procedures and whether a surgeon may ethically refuse to perform a repeat intervention in a patient who has relapsed. Notions of futility are commonly used to navigate this complex terrain, and they were the focus of the ethics consideration given to Jacob's case, in which surgeons were reluctant to perform valve replacements. In this narrative essay, I interrogate the concept of futility by appealing to its history and variable meanings, and I argue against its relevance in cases like Jacob's. I propose that a more suitable bioethical approach in such cases would consider resource allocation, the sociocultural stigma of addiction, and the interpersonal and narrative factors that make each case unique.