How do health economists think about funding end‑of‑life care when prognosis is very poor?

In systems with finite healthcare funding, how do health economists approach end‑of‑life cases where prognosis is very poor but intensive treatment can still prolong life at high cost?

More specifically:

• Do common frameworks (e.g., cost‑effectiveness analysis, QALYs, or other welfare measures) imply that resources should eventually be redirected away from such patients, and if so, how is that threshold defined?
• How do economists incorporate ethical constraints like a “right to life” or political constraints such as public discomfort with explicit rationing?
• Are there notable empirical studies or models that examine how different countries structure these trade‑offs in practice?

I am not asking for medical advice or policy advocacy, just for an explanation of the economic tools and evidence used to analyze these allocation decisions.