Abstract
Research into trends concerning medical futility reveal that aggressive treatment at the end of life is not equating to better outcomes (Colello 2008). In fact, not only is it providing no benefit, all too often it imposes unnecessary pain and suffering. In the case of patients who lack decision making capacity and do not have an advance directive, families are often approached by nursing staff and asked “Do you want us to do everything?” or if they would prefer a Do Not Resuscitate status (DNR), meaning CPR will not be initiated if breathing or the patient’s heart were to stop. This sends a confusing message to families, that there is something worthy of offering their loved ones; when the reality is, there is nothing worthwhile left to offer. More often than not, despite a grim prognosis for the patient and the possibility of being in a persistent vegetative state (PSV), families routinely choose this option, largely because an informative conversation has never taken place as to the implications of these decisions. This is an issue which can no longer be overlooked. It is costing our nation dearly, both ethically and fiscally. As Americans, it is high time that we come to terms with our mortality and accept the reality that death awaits us all. Denial will not make it less likely to occur. As such, in an effort to promote awareness of this issue and the detrimental impact it has on patients and society as a whole, the following will define and explain the various components of the debate.

Overview
The emergence of modern medicine in the second half of the 20th century, while nothing short of remarkable, has come with its own set of challenges. Over the years, health care has become more readily available as employee sponsored health plans have extended coverage to more and more Americans providing better and more comprehensive benefits.