Increasing life expectancy has led to an overload of the courts with guardianships and the rising of public costs. These problems should have been solved with the Trustee Amendment Act 2006 and the advance healthcare directive- law. In addition, it was the intention of the legislature to strengthen the subsidiary principle of § 268 par 2 S 2 Civil Code and the autonomy of the elderly, mentally ill and disabled people.In case of precautionary authority (§§ 284f-284h Civil Code) the agent that is selected of your own - and not ordered of foreign state care ? can be assigned for private law as well as with economic matters. With the advance healthcare directive only medical treatment can by anticipant be refused for specific cases.The aim of this work is to examine current issues and problems of these two legal institutions. It is to show what has been proven in recent years since the introduction of laws on 01.06.2006 (advance healthcare directive) and 01.07.2007 (Trustee Amendment Act), in which cases are still different opinions and uncertainties in the use of the precautionary authority and advance healthcare directive in court decisions, literature and experiences in practice for the concerned, lawyers and doctors.A particularly sensitive area, are the serious medical treatments (283 paragraph 2 Civil Code).When the authorized for the precautionary authority should be legalized to consent, he has to keep on strict procedural requirements. Because of the overlapping of legal institutions, this area needs a closer look. Moreover, the possibility of (at any time) withdrawal, the procedural requirements and the registration and protection from abuse are illuminated.In the practical part the gained experiences and the registration data?s are presented. In the appendix you will find interviews with the notary, Mag. Alice Perscha, and the palliative care physician, Dr. Trautgundis Kaiba.