Depends—the whole point is different people will have different definitions of futile, but I’m talking about someone who’s in bad enough shape an insurance company judges further treatment (beyond basic quality-of-life stuff) to be futile, under a set of criteria known when the policy was purchased. You just defined the person as having become futile, not the treatment. You described a person whose quality of life is so low, the insurance company gets to decide they don't get treatment that someone with a better quality of life would get. That's not futile care. It's futile patient. And I don't play that game.
Forget that, I'm trying to describe a simply hypo and worded it wrong. Say someone in your family buys a policy with clearly defined criteria for when the insurance company will refuse to pay for certain aggressive treatments because such treatments are judged futile, and those criteria are met. You decide you don't think those treatments are "futile," and want to push ahead, but can't afford to do it on your own.
Should the government cover the cost? Should the hospital or insurance company be forced to do so?