One of the most difficult problems facing physicians is how to approach proxy decisions made on behalf of congenitally incompetent patients. The author considers two recent court cases that attempt to provide guidelines: Re Stephen Dawson, which opts for a substituted-judgement approach, and Eve v. Mrs E.) which injoins best-interests considerations. The author explores the impact of Eve v. Mrs. E. as superseding Re Stephen Dawson, considers its ethical implications and attempts to clarify the best-interests criterion by sketching some guidelines for its interpretation. In so doing, he tries to reconcile the two decisions by laying bare their common underlying ethical rationale. The author concludes by pointing out some ethically questionable implications of Eve v. Mrs. E. in the area of allocation of health care resources.