Despite clear legislative and judicial support, a well established ethical consensus, and increased efforts at information dissemination and education, proxy decision making for incapacitated patients continues to produce moral muddle and poor resolutions in end-of-life care.

In her analysis of the proxy-doctor relationship, Nancy Dubler spells out the institutionalized patterns that keep the promise of proxy directives so often unrealized. Facing medically complex care of an incapacitated patient, health care teams are apt to view the proxy as a potentially indecisive or unrealistically demanding decision-maker, less a stand-in for the patient than an interloper whose improper, misguided, or self-interested decisions will work against the patient's best interests. So perceived, proxies are routinely relegated to the edges of care planning discussions, left relatively uninformed and unconsulted, and then suddenly thrust center stage to face decisions they find overwhelming. Confronting such decisions, proxies need support and compassion. What they often find is isolation and distrust, a web of professional and institutional practices that trammel their efforts to understand and execute their role.

In their critique of Wisconsin's revised child protection Statute, Kenneth De Ville and Loretta Kopelman argue rightly that “words matter.” Word mongering infects most political dialogue and is nowhere more virulent than in the American abortion debate. Dichotomies such as “ unborn child” and “fetus,” expectant mother” and “pregnant woman,” “anti-choice’’ and “pro-choice,” “pregnancy termination” and “murder” symbolize the polarity of the abortion argument and the importance of language as a powerful conceptual weapon. The debate over reproductive rights is a war often fought on a linguistic battlefield. There, combatants forgo rules of engagement. Mal-intentioned illiteracy, ranging from the puerile to the vituperative, is always strategic.

In a White House ceremony on May 16, 1997, President Clinton issued an apology on behalf of the nation for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, a forty-year research project in which African-American men were deceived and denied treatment in order to document the natural course of syphilis. Reflection on this occasion can give us pause to take pride in the progress made toward more ethical research with humans. The President's apology is perhaps the most public of a number of recent events representing a renewed attention to ethics in research with human participants. Alongside it stand the efforts of treatment activists for people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and the revelations of the human radiation experiments. In 1995, President Clinton called for the creation of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which was charged with a host of projects aimed at investigating the organization and function of the federal system for overseeing human subjects research in the United States, and giving guidance on specific forms of research.

It was not until the nineteenth century that Western nations came to replace mutilation, corporal punishment, and banishment as the favored method of criminal punishment with the more humane concept of imprisonment. Even then, however, a convicted inmate was viewed as nothing more than a slave of the state, entitled only to the most basic of human rights and subject to the whim and peril of his jailor's desire. The shift to imprisonment gradually was accompanied by the additional humanitarian demand that prisons avail their charges of some minimum standard of human decency and necessity, which, by the early part of the twentieth century, had come to encompass the provision of medical care. The courts later came to acknowledge this as a fundamental right grounded in the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishments.

Although the scope of a prisoner's constitutional right to medical care has been the subject of much debate before the courts, the majority of cases have focused only on the circumstances under which the deprivation of care will amount to a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment.

Several methods have been reported for extracting sperm from a man after he dies or enters a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Although such sperm retrieval could be performed for nonprocreative purposes, such as research, in this paper I focus on cases involving procreative intent. Since 1980, more than ninety cases have occurred in which family members requested sperm retrieval from patients who died or were irreversibly unconscious, with the intent that a wife, girlfriend, or other woman would be inseminated. Recently, the first report of pregnancy and birth following postmortem sperm retrieval appeared in the media.

In these cases, death or PVS typically is caused by anoxic injuries, trauma, or rapidly progressing infections.

Terminally ill elderly and long-term disabled persons under our system of health care are eligible for Medicare and may qualify for the hospice care benefit. Despite such provisions, research shows that individuals still frequently do not receive the health care they need. But, as inadequate as end-of-life care can be for the general population, these inadequacies are exacerbated for individuals incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails. Although inmates are guaranteed a basic level of health care under the Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clause, they lack the mobility or freedom to choose their health care coverage, and they are dependent on an institutional system for such care. Inside prison, security and access issues affect the care inmates receive. Further, the availability of adequate clinical resources, especially for high-cost procedures, may be problematic in some jurisdictions.

In addition to the practical, institutional, and legal barriers to providing and improving general end-of-life care, efforts to improve end-of-life care for prisoners may also encounter a lack of public sympathy.

For years, Jehovah's Witnesses have posed a challenge to the medical profession. Bound by religious belief to refuse blood and blood products, they can frustrate physicians who, since World War II, have utilized transfusions when indicated in the course of treatment.

Medical technology, specialization, and the corporatization of health delivery systems in the late twentieth century have all helped give birth to an unwelcome but unavoidable responsibility for individuals with family or friends—serving as a health care proxy. The responsibility comes without monetary compensation, is often involuntary, and lacks any real guidelines beyond the duty to make life-and-death decisions in circumstances over which the proxy has little control.

The parameters of the proxy's job have evolved somewhat awkwardly in statutes and case law, as lawmakers and judges have tried to apply conventional concepts to novel circumstances. This article examines the legal and functional status of the proxy, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of current public policy as reflected by state advance directive and surrogate decision-making laws. The first section of the article provides a historical perspective of our current notions of agency law as relevant to health care proxies.

Despite increased general awareness of suicide in U.S. adult correctional facilities as well as the availability of research and correctional standards that advocate increased attention and services to potentially suicidal inmates, prevention efforts within correctional facilities remain piecemeal and inmate suicide continues to be a serious public health problem. A robotic state of mind excuse, that inmate suicide is not preventable, impedes prevention efforts. In the following discussion, the key ingredients to comprehensive suicide prevention programming are offered to dispel these obstacles.

Suicide is a leading cause of death in jails across the United States, with well over 400 inmates taking their lives each year. In some urban jail facilities, deaths related to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) slightly outnumber deaths by suicide. The rate of suicide in county jails is estimated to be approximately nine times greater than that of the general population. Overall, most jail suicide victims are young white males who have been arrested for nonviolent offenses and were intoxicated when arrested.

This paper discusses the role of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) in monitoring inmate deaths in custody on a national basis. It also provides a descriptive overview of Australian Indigenous and non-Indigenous inmate deaths in custody during the eighteen-year period between 1980 and 1998.

In October 1987, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) commenced investigating the deaths of Australia's Indigenous people in custody throughout Australia between January 1, 1980 and May 31, 1989. RCIADIC's task was to examine the circumstances of the deaths; the actions taken by authorities; and the underlying causes of Indigenous deaths in custody, including social, cultural, and legal factors. The investigation found that the major factor contributing to the high number of Indigenous deaths in custody was the disproportionately higher rates at which Indigenous people come into contact with the criminal justice system. RCIADIC concluded that the most significant reason for this contact was the severely disadvantaged social, economic, and cultural position of many Indigenous people.

The laws and ethical guidelines governing decision making for incompetent patients evolved from controversies in which family members refused life-sustaining interventions. These cases led to a consensus that advance directives to limit interventions should be respected and that a surrogate designated by the patient or specified by statute could refuse interventions, even when other relatives disagreed. Surrogate decision-making statutes and ethical principles about respect for delegated autonomy promote an active role for family members or other surrogates in medical decisions for incompetent patients. Inviting surrogates to participate actively in medical decisions recognizes the importance of the patient's personal community and assures that decisions will reflect the patient's own preferences and values.

The standard approach to decisions for incompetent adults gives advance directives priority over a surrogate's substituted judgment, which in turn has priority over assessments of the patient's best interest. A patient may express advance directives by appointing a proxy, stating specific preferences, or articulating general values. We use case examples to illustrate the limitations of all three types of advance directives.

Ever since the U.S. Attorney General named health care fraud as the government's second highest priority after violent crime, the government has cracked down on health care fraud and abuse. Some of this crackdown has been needed. The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that as much as 10 percent of all government expenditures on health care are being siphoned out of the system because of fraud or abuse.

The extreme measures taken to curb health care abuse have raised eyebrows, however. The American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association both have been vocal in their disapproval, describing the current enforcement initiative as “absolutely out of control.” The associations even went so far as to file suit to enjoin the government's actions.