Well that guy's an idiot then. That one guy is an idiot shouldn't prevent anyone else from declaring a near-permanent DNR...
He should have it covered up if he doesn't mean it.
He should have it covered up if he doesn't mean it.
I'm just saying there are some reasons to consider tattooed DNRs invalid. While the guy, in this case, could have obviously covered up his tattoo prior to his scheduled surgery (permanently or temporarily), what if he had been in an unexpected accident?
I don't have any tattoos but a quick google says removal is expensive too. I guess you could have someone tattoo over it, but, in the article, they mention a man who had come from a nursing facility. I'm not sure how practical it is to suggest he should have had it removed/covered up prior.
I like the basis of killjoywashere's suggestion, but, in a more centralized way that would allow you to register your intentions in a way that hospitals could easily check on your desires and status.
The tatoo is not legally binding. It never was. As stated in the article, it can't even give the kind of reassurance that is required by law (indication of rational descision)
Why should he have expected that it works?