Increasingly, clinicians and commentators have been calling for the establishment of special adjudicatory dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve intractable medical futility disputes. As a leading model to follow, policymakers both around the United States and around the world have been looking to the conflict resolution provisions in the 1999 Texas Advance Directives Act (‘TADA’). In this article, I provide a complete and thorough review of the purpose, history, and operation of TADA. I conclude that TADA is a commendable attempt to balance the competing goals of efficiency and fairness in the resolution of these time-sensitive life-and-death conflicts. But TADA is too lopsided. It is far more efficient than it is fair. TADA should be amended to better comport with fundamental notions of procedural due process.

中文翻译：

---

德州提前指令法：解决难治性医疗徒劳冲突的模型争议解决机制

临床医生和评论员越来越多地呼吁建立特别的裁决性争端解决机制，以解决棘手的医疗徒劳纠纷。作为遵循的领先模式，美国和世界各地的决策者都一直在关注1999年《德克萨斯州先进指示法》（TADA）中解决冲突的规定。在本文中，我对TADA的用途，历史和操作进行了完整而透彻的回顾。我得出的结论是，TADA是在解决这些对时间敏感的生死冲突的过程中平衡效率和公平性这两个相互竞争的目标的值得赞扬的尝试。但是TADA太偏了。它远比公平有效。应修改TADA以更好地符合程序性正当程序的基本概念。