During the past several years, numerous studies have been conducted regarding advance directives (that is, living wills and durable powers of attorney (DPAs) for health care). Studies have examined how many individuals have executed advance directives, who is more likely to execute such directives, and whether factors such as education, income, race, religiosity, or family status affect the likelihood of having executed an advance directive or one's willingness to do so. Studies have also investigated the effectiveness of different educational strategies aimed at increasing the number of individuals who execute these documents. Finally, a number of researchers have looked at the implementation of advance directives (that is, whether they are followed in the institutional setting).

Although we now have a better understanding of some of these issues, one area that has been virtually ignored is the reliability, validity, and overall user friendliness of the advance directive forms themselves, and, in particular, of the statutory advance directive forms.

Last month, a fifty-eight-year old man developed bleeding into his cheek and oozing from sites where previously he had had blood samples drawn. This bleeding was caused by disseminated intravascular coagulation, a complication of colon cancer that had spread to his liver and lungs. This complication occurred even though he was on chemotherapy for the cancer. In the hospital, he received transfusions and was administered medicine to stop the bleeding. However, his condition did not improve. He developed more bruises. When he tried to go to the bathroom without assistance, he fell, struck his head, requiring stitches, and developed a black, swollen eye. The patient, a successful businessman, had already overcome another type of cancer—lymphoma—through chemotherapy, twenty-five years ago. In a few days, this dynamic individual who expected to start experimental chemotherapy now saw his quality of life deteriorate steadily.

We talked about more chemotherapy, about hospice, and about withholding attempts at resuscitation if his heart should stop.

The market changes sweeping the U.S. health care industry have a distinctive impact on communities that rely on religiously affiliated health care providers. When a sectarian sponsor subsumes multiple providers, its assertion of religious beliefs can preclude the provision of certain health care services to the entire community. In addition, the sectarian provider's refusal to offer certain services may violate state certificates of need, licensing, Medicaid managed care, or even professional liability law. This situation challenges both the provider and the state: the provider seeks adherence to religious law, and the state seeks compliance with its law and citizens access to health care.

I propose that the state attempt to ameliorate tensions between civil and religious laws through negotiated accomodation. This concept encourages the sectarian institution to reassess its mission in the current market and to identify alternative avenues of health care delivery that will preserve patients' access to care without excessively diluting religious identity or beliefs.

Physicians have long aided their patients in dying in an effort to ease human suffering. It is only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that the prolongation of life has taken on new meaning due to the powers now available to physicians, through new drugs and high technology interventions. Whereas earlier physicians and patients could readily acknowledge that nothing further could be done, today that judgment is problematic.

Most often, aiding the dying took the form of not doing anything further to prolong life. Morally, this act of restraint was not difficult, because few options could have been considered. However, some physicians, rarely, would help patients die either by hastening death directly or by increasing pain control with the risk of hastening death, the so-called double effect. When directly hastening death, physicians either directly caused the death of the patient through euthansia, or supplied the means to the patient to bring about death with or without encouragement to use these means. The latter is physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

Adequate treatment of pain is essential to alleviate suffering, yet studies show that patients with terminal or serious illness receive inadequate pain relief. In the case of terminally ill patients, adequate palliation of pain may be likely to reduce requests for physician-assisted suicide. This issue of the journal addresses barriers to effective pain relief and suggests how treatment of pain can be improved. The symposium features the Pain Relief Act, which is designed to provide practitioners who prescribe controlled substances for pain with protection from inappropriate legal sanctions. The Act is the product of the Project on Legal Constraints on Access to Effective Pain Relief, whose principal investigators were Nancy Neveloff Dubler, LL.B., Sandra H. Johnson, J.D., LL.M., Robert J. Levine, M.D., and Benjamin W. Moulton, J.D., M.P.H.

The Project was supported by the Mayday Fund and the Emily Davie and Joseph S. Kornfeld Foundation.

The legal treatment of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is in flux. Reform has been impelled by several forces, including the recent success of novel constitutional arguments in the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals. I will review and discuss Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington and Quill v. Vacco, addressing the constitutional arguments, and then briefly considering the attractions and difficulties of these new constitutional theories.

Before 1990, state criminal laws dealing with assisted suicide had reached a remarkably stable consensus: suicide was not illegal, but assisting suicide was a criminal action with no distinction typically made between physicians and others who assisted. The details of the relevant criminal law varied from state to state. Some states had criminal statutes specifically addressing assisted suicide, while others treated the practice under more general homicide statutes. But in no state was it clearly legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal medication at the request of a dying patient. While remarkable legal developments took place during the 1970s and 1980s regarding other aspects of the rights of dying patients (including the right to refuse resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatments and the right to withdraw from life-sustaining treatment including nutrition and hydration), there was relative quiescence regarding the law of PAS.

In the face of escalating Medicaid costs and anticipated reductions in federal Medicaid spending, states are increasingly converting from fee-for-service (FFS) to managed health care systems. The interrelated issues of enrollment and auto-assignment are fundamental to the overall success or failure of Medicaid managed care programs. The purpose of this article is to suggest how policy makers, consumer advocates, and providers should address these issues. My major premise is that implementation of managed care will proceed more smoothly if states adopt enrollment strategies that promote voluntary selection of health plans by Medicaid consumers, minimize the likelihood of auto-assignment, and mitigate the negative consequences of mandatory assignment of consumers to managed care organizations (MCOs).

States seeking to implement Medicaid managed care must apply for a waiver from the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Two different types of waivers are available to implement Medicaid managed care.

Pain management has no meaning without the stories of men and women, and boys and girls whose lives are dramatically altered by the presence of pain in their own and their loved ones lives. In this narrative section, four people present their perspectives on the enigma and challenge of pain, its power, and our on-going efforts to limit its hold on our lives.

In the first story, Dr. Robert McQuillan, an anesthesiologist with Creighton University School of Medicine, conveys the fear some patients suffering chronic pain face when seeking pain medication over the long term. Dr. Christine Cassel, chair of the Department of Geriatrics and Adult Development at Mount Sinai Medical Center and immediate past president of the American College of Physicians, recounts the plight of a fellow physician whose pain treatment of a patient led to suspension of his professional license and to personal bitterness after many years of exemplary medical practice.

Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, the proportion of AIDS cases among women has continued to rise. Women constituted 23 percent of the AIDS cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1995, and 81 percent of these women were of childbearing age (13 to 44 years). It was not until 1991, however, that epidemiological studies of women were initiated. By comparison, the representation of HIV-infected women in clinical trials gradually has grown. Undoubtedly, a consequence of the increased numbers of women in clinical and epidemiological research is the earlier identification of and more appropriate treatments for HIV-related syndromes when women present in the clinical setting. Despite this expanded focus on women, however, clear information to guide the treatment of HIV-infected women who are pregnant is still lagging behind.

Mary was angry. Youre going to take my pain medications away, aren't you? These were the first words she spoke as I walked into the examining room. Mary had a complex medical history, beginning with a back injury in 1988 that led to several surgical procedures, multiple injections of local anesthetic and corticosteroids, and placement of a dorsal column stimulator, none of which provided significant relief of her pain. Crippled by severe and sharp pain in her lower back and left leg, she had sought help from several physicians, and had most recently been referred to me specifically, as she put it, to take away the pain medications.

Not that the pain medications had afforded Mary a normal life by any stretch of imagination. She was taking eight to ten moderate strength opioid tablets per day in an effort to decrease her pain. She was not active, choosing to spend most of her time at home. She had quit her job shortly after the work-related accident. In fact, the workman's compensation board is still disputing her claim, and this dispute took a toll on Mary.

If the Supreme Court affirms either Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington or Quill v. Vacco, state legislatures will be presented with a new and unwelcome task: regulating physician-assisted suicide (PAS). This article focuses on the states task of specific policy making in light of the due process reasoning in Compassion in Dying and the equal protection reasoning in Quill. Policy makers must try to predict whether a particular regulation would in practice achieve its intended objective. They must also try to predict whether the regulation would survive constitutional review if challenged. Finally, they must consider the extent to which they could, or should, maintain two different regulatory regimes: a more permissive one for decisions to forgo life-sustaining medical treatments, and a more restrictive one for decisions to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication. This last issue will be especially challenging if the equal protection analysis in Quill prevails.

Advance care directives for health care have been promoted as a way to improve end-of-life decision making. These documents allow a patient to state, in advance of incapacity, the types of medical treatments they would like to receive (a living will), to name a surrogate to make those decisions (a durable power of attorney for health care), or to do both. Although studies have shown that both physicians and patients generally have positive attitudes about the use of these documents, relatively few individuals have actually completed one.

What underlies this discrepancy between attitudes and behavior with regard to advance care directives? One obvious explanation is lack of access. Emanuel et al. estimated that approximately 90 percent of the population desire an advance care directive, and they pointed to access as the major barrier. Yet interventions that increase accessibility have typically failed to yield more than a 20 percent completion rate. Thus, it appears that access is not the sole determinant of advance care directive completion.

Researchers, scientists, and physicians in Uganda have become increasingly aware of the need to develop a systematic approach to reviewing bio-medical research conducted in their country. Much of this awareness and their concern stems from Uganda's high seroprevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the consequent large influx of research monies and HIV researchers from developed countries, including the United States and Great Britain.

We report on the proceedings of a five-day symposium on bioethical principles governing clinical trials, which convened in Jinja, Uganda in September 1994. The thirteen male and female workshop participants included representatives from the Uganda Ministry of Health, Makerere University, the Uganda AIDS Commission, Uganda's National Council of Science and Technology, and the National Chemotherapeutic Laboratory. These representatives included ethicists, physicians, researchers, and pharmacists, all of whom have conducted research themselves. Initial workshop sessions focused on the history of human experimentation and the development of protections for human participants in medical research, both in the United States and internationally.

At a White House ceremony in October 1995, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments presented its Final Report to President Bill Clinton. The 925-page report and the over 2,000 pages of supplemental volumes summarized eighteen months of investigative research, debate, and deliberation on historical and contemporary issues in human subjects research. The Advisory Committee's efforts were aided by unprecedented support from the highest levels of the executive branch, including the heads of eight cabinet-level agencies and their departments' resources. The presidentially appointed committee and its staff delved into long-forgotten Cold Warera government archives, listened to hours of public testimony, interviewed key players in the development of medical therapies and nuclear weapons, and studied ethical issues arising in today's research.

In this article we focus on a critical, but narrowly defined, part of the Advisory Committee's Final Report: remedying harms or wrongs to subjects of human radiation experiments conducted or sponsored by the U.S. government between 1944 and 1974.

Dr. M is a fifty-nine-year-old internist with a successful practice in a major Eastern United States city. He has lived in this city his whole life and is a highly esteemed citizen. Because of his broader social concerns and energetic support of activities to improve access to health care and quality of care for the underserved, Dr. M became involved in a number of local and regional medical organizations and quickly rose to prominence as as a director of a board of a major national organization. In this position, he was an effective, articulate spokesperson, highly respected for his integrity and thoughtfulness.

Before one of the meetings of thithis s board, Dr. M personally contacted the organization's other directors, including me, to warn us that we might be hearing some scandalous news about him. He wanted us first to hear it from him personally. This was the scandalous news.

Dr. M had assumed the care of a patient of a recently retired colleague. The patient was an older woman with multiple musculoskeletal complaints related to lumbar stenosis and advanced degenerative arthritis of the spine, which left her in immense pain.

The question of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has become a serious public debate. Growing interest in assisted suicide reflects a public increasingly fearful of the process of dying, particularly the prospect of dying a painful, protracted, or undignified death. PAS has been proposed as a compassionate response to unrelievable suffering, designed to give terminally or incurably ill individuals direct control over the timing, manner, and circumstances of their death. Although the American Medical Association remains firmly opposed to legalizing PAS, many physicians have begun to express support for the practice, and some have acknowledged that they have helped patients commit suicide despite the existing legal ban.

As support for PAS grows, it becomes increasingly likely that the practice will be legalized in at least some states in the not-too-distant future. In 1994, Oregon voters approved a referendum legalizing PAS for competent, terminally ill patients; a federal court injunction preventing the referendum from going into effect is currently on appeal, and it is widely expected that the injunction will be lifted.

In theory, a competent patient may refuse any and all treatments, even those that sustain life. The problem with this theory, confidently and frequently asserted, is that the circumstances of real patients may so confound us with their complexity as to shake our confident assumptions to their core.

For instance, it is not the case that one may always and easily know which patients are competent. Indeed, evaluation of decision-making capacity is notoriously difficult. Not only may reasonable and experienced evaluators, say a judge and a psychiatrist, disagree, but also a person's capacity may change from hour to hour and may extend to some decisions yet not to others. And yet it is on this subtle art of capacity evaluation that life and death decisions often turn, especially when patients decline life-sustaining treatment.

An evaluation of capacity may consider the impact of serious medical or psychiatric illness, as well as the patient's life circumstances.