Wesley J. Smith has been keeping his readers updated on attempts to pass state laws authorizing doctors to put a Do Not Resuscitate order on a patient's chart without the consent of the patient or patient representative.
An attempt to pass such a law was recently averted in Texas (Smith testified against that law), but similar laws have just been passed in Maryland and Vermont. (Side point: My understanding based on this case is that no-consent DNRs could already be put on a patient's chart given the official vote of a hospital ethics committee, so I don't know for sure what the point was of the new law. Perhaps it was to allow the doctors to write the no-consent DNRs without bothering to go through the hospital death panel.)
California has a variant on this: Doctors can't write a DNR order without your consent, but if your orders, even written ones, include resuscitation, doctors are free to ignore them.
The obvious comment is "so much for choice."
More than that, it's important to know that "Do Not Resuscitate" can be code for "Do Not Feed," surprisingly enough. (And how is the average layman supposed to know that at all, since it is unstated?) It seems to me highly probable that a state's authorizing unilateral DNR orders will amount in practice to the legality of unilateral death by dehydration.
Note, too, that this has nothing to do with the patient's alleged inability to pay. If it has to do with cost at all, it's only in the indirect sense that the futilitarians believe "we" own "our health care dollars" corporately and that they (the really Rational People) should control them. Hence, whether you have insurance or even want to pay out of your own pocket or not, the money shouldn't in their view be spent on what they regard as "futile care." The issue is entirely one of futile care theory.
We need to be on the ball to lobby against such laws if they are being considered in our own states. I strongly advise following a blog like Wesley J. Smith's Human Exceptionalism to get a "heads up" when needed.