Letters

The great computer crash of 2000 is much ado about nothing

"Alarmist" is the best word to describe Craig Fieschko's article, "The Great Computer Crash of 2000," in the May issue. As the title suggests, the article is about a future event ... that may not ever happen. Ignorance and fear of computer technology has, in my view, made the little Y2K bug out to be a fierce godzilla.

To solve the problem, a computer technician need only expand a two-character field in a database to four characters, and insert "19" before all of the existing 20th century dates. This simple two-step operation will resolve the issue for the vast majority of commercial enterprises that rely upon computers. This is not to say that there's nothing to do be done ­ there is. Companies must be sure that their software accepts four-digit year entries, but this is not brain surgery.

The alarmists have created the term "Y2K compliant" for those businesses that have performed this simple operation, as if it requires review and certification by a CPA and a government regulator. My advice is to let the techies do their job and then forget about it. Mr. Fieschko's article does nothing to solve the problem, but only provides a road map for plaintiff's lawyers who wish to generate some business after the long turn-of-the-millennium weekend. Take another week off folks, it's probably much ado about nothing.

Patrick J. Goggins, Miami, Fla.

There's a wide variety of opinion regarding how the year 2000 problem will play out. Some commentators believe that it will amount to little more than an expensive inconvenience (for example, David Wessel, Year 2000 is Costly, But Not Catastrophic, Wall St. J., May 4, 1998, at A1), while others believe it will lead to widespread business failure and a global economic recession (for example, Michael J. Mandel et al., ZAP! How the Year 2000 Bug Will Hurt the Economy, Bus. Wk., March 2, 1998, at 93).

One point is undisputed, however: If your information systems suffer from mission-critical year 2000 problems and you don't address them in time, you're going to get hurt. Solutions are easily stated ­ such as, converting two-digit data and hardware/software routines to four-digit versions ­ but are notoriously difficult to implement in any reasonable amount of time.

As a sobering illustration of the magnitude of this task, witness the Statement to Congress by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation concerning whether the Federal Aviation Administration will be able to bring the nation's air traffic control systems into year 2000 compliance by the end of 1999 (currently available on the Web at http://www.house.gov/science/mead_02-4.htm).

In view of the risks involved, it's important that attorneys (and their clients) know about the year 2000 problem and have the "techies" act on it soon. If they do, no problem; if they don't, they should start using the article's "road map" to plot escape routes. In view of the Inspector General's report, they may not be able to escape by plane.

Craig A. Fieschko, Madison

Legislature revises state's do-not-resuscitate law

As a follow up to my article, "Wisconsin's Do-Not-Resuscitate Bracelet Law Raises Legal and Medical Issues" in the December 1997 Wisconsin Lawyer, attorneys should be aware that the statute allowing terminally ill patients to wear a do-not-resuscitate bracelet, Subchapter III of Chapter 154, was amended by 1997 Wis. Act 27.

The amended law creates new section 154.225 clarifying the power of a guardian or health-care agent (as defined in sections 51.40(1)(f) and 155.01(4)) to request and sign the consent for a do-not-resuscitate bracelet on behalf of an incapacitated terminally ill patient. A guardian or health-care agent of an incapacitated person also may revoke a do-not-resuscitate bracelet by any of the methods provided in the statute. Significantly, the statute now provides that a valid bracelet may be overridden not only by the patient's verbal request for resuscitation but also by a verbal request from a guardian or health-care agent. (See Wis. Stat. § 155.225(2)(a).)

While the broadening of verbal revocability is consistent with an agent or guardian's power to make or revoke a do-not-resuscitate order, in practice this provision creates a dilemma for the emergency responder. In an emergency situation, the responder will have to decide if a valid bracelet trumps a third party's verbal demand for resuscitation. The emergency care giver will have to determine that a third party requesting resuscitation on behalf of the incapacitated patient is that patient's legal health-care agent or guardian. Being trained to provide emergency resuscitation, responders will likely provide full resuscitation, rather than wrongly refuse a valid verbal request from a third party who could prove, if time would allow, to be a legal health-care agent or guardian. Emergency responders do not have time to review documents appointing health-care agents or guardians, nor should they be asked to assess their validity. Will the result of this amendment mean that any emergency care giver will accede to the demand for resuscitation by any third party present at the time of the emergency? If the emergency care giver asks, "Are you the guardian or health-care agent of this person?" and if the response is, "Yes," the emergency responder likely will proceed with resuscitation, rather than risk contravening the request of a valid agent/guardian.

The change in the law reinforces the necessity of every patient discussing their wishes with their health-care agents while they still have the capacity to do so, to ensure that their agents will not revoke a DNR bracelet that the patients would have wanted to remain in effect.

Additionally, the amendment provides for patients to receive information about the resuscitation procedures that the patient has chosen to forego and information about how a do-not-resuscitate order can be revoked prior to signing such an order. Previously, this information could be given to the patient after the order was issued. The change is merely one of timing and will have little effect on the overall planning by doctors and patients making these decisions.

Jane Barclay Mandel, Milwaukee

Courts are losing power

The Wisconsin Supreme Court came to La Crosse to let the public see what arguing a case in front of the court is like. The court is reaching out to its customer base after 150 years of existence because the court is losing market share to a system of far less expensive private dispute resolutions. The court foresees that if the trend continues, it will have fewer civil cases in a large workload of mostly criminal cases. In the process of losing desirable business and increasing undesirable business, the court will lose prestige and the power to regulate social policy. The loss of power and prestige will render the court far less significant.

But why the downward trend in power and prestige? Courts have complained of being overworked. The response to the increased workload was to develop a system to decide cases that has taken the humanity out of their decisions. In the victory of a system over humanity, sacrificed on the altar of efficiency, the expense of deciding cases grows for the litigants. But taking its dog-and-pony show to La Crosse will not capture market share for a system of justice that prides itself on a lack of humanity.

Donald J. Harman, La Crosse

Wisconsin Lawyer