Also you have to be fine being openly racist and shitty. Then just hope the left will understand your motives and forgive.
I think it's easier for dems to move right as they get older on account of mental decline. Fetterman had a stroke. RFK had brain worms. Brains don't magically "get better" with age. They can however be injured and get worse.
Consider if he's incapacitated. That takes away 1 vote in the senate. If he dies, the KY governor is required to pick from choices provided by the party of the departing senator. So they would necessarily be republican.
People being put on some list like that "without their consent" is a totally different topic in my mind. To me that's more of a system failure rather than a problem with what the system is attempting to accomplish. The first person mentioned though had quotes alluding to the person ostensibly consenting. So that again is a bit of a different topic that would focus on what constitutes informed consent. That being said I've approached this under the assumption that the DNR order is valid and from a fully informed and consenting person.
That being said, the fact that they have actual lists is mind boggling. I can't understand why a list like that would even need to exist. That information should be with the records for that person, not jumbled into a list with other people. So as far as something being a culture shock to me, that right there.
Further, your 10 questions and other comments seem to be conflating DNR with suicide. This might be where we have a cultural difference. In the US, DNR is not usually conflated in this way. It is also not conflated with euthanasia which is closer to suicide. I'm assuming most users here are either US based or some other country with similar views on DNR to the US. I have a feeling this is where most people commenting are confused with how you are discussing this topic.
Pretty sure that state law was rammed through at warp speed once Beshear was elected but prior to him taking office.
You aren't explaining "your environment" well. You are being way too vague and abstract on these concepts.
the patient's perspective would never fly in my environment
This doesn't make sense. Your "environment" not regarding a person's choice to forego certain medical treatment sounds more like a personal preference. It's hard to envision anywhere not understanding there are people that wish to discontinue medical treatment for whatever reason. Whether you personally agree with it or not is irrelevant to the overall environment. So the way you have approached that topic feels like it's your opinion rather than the overall culture of your "environment".
So can you elaborate on your "environment" and how it regards someone opting to not be resuscitated? If you want a specific, consider an elderly person with aggressive cancer along to be DNR?
Well what is your viewpoint? After multiple comments I still can't piece it together.
It matters how the law is worded (at least in the US). Parking tickets are always worded that the owner of the vehicle is responsible. Otherwise anyone could claim they weren't the one that parked there. Generally speeding and actual moving infractions go to the driver not the owner.
Doctor Mike is a real doctor with a youtube channel. He reviews multiple episodes of House and they're hilarious. It's like every time House has some epiphany and orders some new radical treatment he winds up yelling "WHY!?" into the ether.
They formed a committee!
Of course they are. Some are just created more equal.
But an educated populace is anathema to the ruling class.
The 5 star reviews are... well they are something.