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