do not resuscitate

Exactly that bigbear67. A few hundred or even thousand is less of a drain on the state. Makes you wonder what the state is actually for...

Exactly!

It's what's happening though. Unbelievable I know, but it is the case. I think the first minister should come clean and let us all know what the fuck is going on and who made the decision.

It concerns me hugely. I've had nothing but battles with public sector staff over the years with regard to my son, who's only just turned 18 and has several conditions, including learning disabilities. The over riding approach, in my experience, across every sector, is that they're not worth the bother and it's perfectly acceptable to ignore every bit of legislation and guidance going. It's a constant thorn in my side. When it comes to giving consent for something, there are clear guidelines within the Mental Capacity Act about assessing a person's competence and what to do if they aren't able to understand their situation, and what we've experienced so far is that they declare him capable if it's easier for them, and not capable if it means more work or them not meeting a target. So the DNR thing doesn't surprise me as I've heard of relatives finding a vulnerable person has signed a DNR form without knowing what they're signing. Actively deciding something like that for yourself in advance is very different - I have a friend in her 70s who looked after terminally ill people for years and she's got everything set up so that no-one intervenes when her time comes. She's seen too many people suffer to want to go through the same herself and I can understand that completely. But to encourage a sort of mass consent before a person even gets unwell is disgusting and must be very harmful to the mental health of people who would already be concerned, I would imagine, about being more vulnerable to this anyway.

A DNR DNAR DNACPR forms have to be discussed with your doctor and witnessed. Theyre only a record of your personal wishes when youre of sound mind to make such decisions and are not legally binding.
Unless you're terminally ill very old and fragile health or your chances of meaningful conscious recovery are nil, the medical staff are required to take whatever measures required to assist your recovery.
The form is only there to assist in the decision making process if youre not going to recover without invasive intervention and not able to make your own views known at that time.

Any medical staff would be in deep shit if a coroner found from post mortem or inquest into your care that you had been deprived of proper medical care.You can be charged with negligence,found criminally negligent or struck off any professional registration body and prohibited from working in your profession.
The employer of said medic surgeon paramedic nurse general staff etc has vicarious liability for your actions and can also be held responsible for or sued for your actions or inaction.

Its not a decision made lightly or comfortably by anyone, i know that from 25 years of being in that position.
Unfortunately its a very emotive subject,like organ donation and the new rules on opting out of automatic donation rather than opting into it.

We need to have a proper discussion about it all and into assisted dieing. Kneejerk sensationalist journalism isnt going to assist any rational discussion.