Still, the unifying factor that is prevalent in both types of physiologic futility is that there is absolutely no chance of recovery or of beneficence to be gained by a particular procedure. Due to the varying nature of both forms of medical futility, probabilistic and physiologic, the way medical practitioners should deal with these respective situations varies accordingly. In terms of the treatment of probabilistic futility, such practitioners must take account the fact that no matter how remote, there is a possibility of beneficence to be gained by a procedure which is being considered either by the patient or by his family, and must act accordingly. Therefore, a physician or medical staff should not be the sole determinant of a whether such a procedure is undertaken. Instead, medical personnel should consult with either the patient or with his or her family to come to a consensus of opinions -- ideally with plans for contingency -- regarding whether or not a particular procedure should be formed. The values of all parties should be examined, because they may not all be congruent with one another, particularly the perspective of the medical practitioners and those of the patient's family.

However, for most cases of physiologic futility, medical personnel can exercise the autonomy required to not perform a certain operation that has been confirmed to be useless, if not noxious, to a specific patient. Because of the nature of this type of medical futility in which there is no potential for any beneficence...

However, it is possible for situations of disagreement to arise between family and medical personnel regarding the treatment of this sort of futility situation, particularly when personnel have not curtailed the option for a specific procedure as early as may be possible. If a patient is being kept alive on a respirator with no hope of being revived (such as in a case in which he or she is brain dead), family members may argue that the good being done to the patient is evinced in the simple fact that he or she is being kept alive, despite the fact that he or she is in a vegetative state. In instances like this physicians may have to consult with family members before discontinuing respiratory augmentation (Walker 1999).
References

Walker, R.M. (1999). "Ethical issues in end of life care." Cancer Control Journal. Volume 6, Number 2. Retrieved from http://www.moffitt.org/CCJRoot/v6n2/article4.htm

Nash, R.D. (2009). "On the Permissibility of a DNR Orderfor Patient with Dismal Prognosis." Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics. Volume 25 Issue 2. Retrieved from http://cbhd.org/content/permissibility-dnr-order-patient-dismal-prognosis

Jonsen, A.R., Siegler, M., Winslade, W.J. (2002). Clinical Ethics: A Practical approach To Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine. New York: McGraw Hill/Appleton Lange.