![]()
Vol. 71, No.
6, June 1998
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
© State Bar of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Lawyer Main
WisBar Main
| 