Traditionally, surrogates have been involved principally in making decisions about life-sustaining treatment for incompetent individuals. Today, surrogates are increasingly called upon to make everyday medical decisions for patients who are incompetent because they are demented. Some of the potential perils of proxy decision making under these circumstances have been identified, including the lack of concordance between patients and their proxies, demands by proxies for technically futile therapy, and actual abuse of patients. We found a significant number of cases in which healthcare providers at a long-term care facility came into conflict with surrogates because the treatment desired by the surrogate was viewed as excessively burdensome when evaluated by an experienced team of nurses, physicians, and social workers. Neither a court-appointed guardian nor an Institutional ethics committee were likely to be able to resolve these conflicts because of lack of clarity about what constitutes the best Interest of Impaired nursing home patients. The following case illustrates this increasingly common conflict.

A referral was made to our Cardiac Transplant Program for a patient who was in the New Jersey Prison System. The Medical Director of the New Jersey Department of Corrections called regarding a 39-year-old inmate who was being treated in a New Jersey hospital that has a unit for prisoners from a nearby cor- rectional facility. The referring physician described the patient to our Medical Director of heart transplantation as a “murderer” who had been incarcerated since 1987 and sentenced to prison for 30 years without eligibility for parole before completion of his 30-year sentence. The patient was being treated in the CCU of the facility and according to preliminary studies, was suffering from a possible dilated cardiomyopathy. There was evidence of a prior cerebrovascular accident (etiology unknown) with a dense hemiplegia of the left side. The patient was alert but unable to care for himself. There were a number of specific tests necessary to evaluate the patient's candidacy for heart transplantation before actually placing him-on a waiting list. However, the transplant director was uncertain about having the patient brought to our facility for further testing and called some members of the Transplant Selection Committee team to discuss the case.

The question of whether Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders should be sustained in the operating room was brought to our ethics committee by a pulmonologist and involved one of his patients for whom he serves as a primary care physician. His patient, a woman with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) was electing, for comfort purposes, to have a hip pinning following a fracture. At the same time, she wished to have a DNR order covering her entire hospital stay. The anesthesiologist described her direction as “improper” and refused to participate in surgical procedures if DNR orders extended to the operating room. The patient refused to rescind the order during surgery. As a result, the surgery was canceled to the great chagrin of the patient.

As ethics committees become involved in discussing the propriety of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and as healthcare providers begin to seriously consider whether they might ever have a role in hastening the dying process, many have looked to The Netherlands as the only real example of a nation that permits (or, at least, excuses) euthanasia in limited circumstances. Unfortunately, partisans in the Dutch debate have often written about the Dutch experience as advocates rather than as neutral observers. Some have argued that euthanasia, which, they claim, is rarely actually practiced, is universally accepted within The Netherlands; others have reported that the Dutch social fabric has been rended irreparably by what they claim, is a practice far more widespread than is generally understood. The debate in the United States has also been colored by a misunderstanding of the legal regulation of euthanasia in The Netherlands.

The era of managed care has arrived with portents of a new calculus to integrate cost and quality in health services. These devises such as “report cards” and “outcome measures” place performance against expectations and thus are expected to gauge the value of specific elements of healthcare delivery. From such measures and comparisons, the public will be able to better judge the appropriate, effective, and attractive place to seek their medical services. What is now widely used by utilization review, guiding reimbursement decisions and allowances for the length of hospital stays, will soon have a more prosperous future as general guidelines built into the very framework of managed care agreements.