PRESS ASSOCIATION -- A man is suing a hospital trust over his claims that medics twice put "do not resuscitate" orders on his wife's medical notes without her consent.
David Tracey is taking legal action following the alleged use of the orders while his wife Janet was treated at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge.
Doctors cancelled the first order after she objected to it, only to then put on a second one, he claims.
Care home manager Mrs Tracey, 63, had been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer but died at the hospital 16 days after breaking her neck in a car accident, according to reports.
Her widower is taking action against Cambridge University Hospitals NHS trust which is responsible for Addenbrooke's, and the Department of Health, which he claims have acted unlawfully by not having a standard policy on resuscitation decisions.
Mr Tracey told the Guardian: "My wife cared for the elderly all her life and her treatment at Addenbrooke's caused unnecessary suffering to her, our daughters and me. She would have taken great pride in seeking a change to the system which would mean future patients and their families are not forced to endure the same experience."
A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "Decisions on Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation must be clinically appropriate for the individual involved, weighing up the possible benefits of CPR against any burdens or risks associated with the treatment.
"Because clinical judgment is so important in these decisions, it's our view that guidance provided by a responsible body of professional opinion, based on direct experience of the complexity and sensitivity of these circumstances, is more appropriate than the setting of national guidance by the department.
"There is a substantial amount of expert guidance available to assist those making complex decisions in discussion with other members of the healthcare team, the patient and their family."
A spokesman for Addenbrooke's Hospital said: "We do not agree with the account given by the family, but we cannot debate the issues involved because we are subject to ongoing judicial review proceedings. Our clinicians followed the DNACPR policy, which remains in place."