It's quite hard to summarise this in just one post but I will try. I'm not a consultant either just a registrar so for very tricky ethical dilemmas / differences of opinion between medical team and parents a consultant would always be involved and leading the discussions. Which means some gaps in my experience / reference points possibly. I don't have decades of experience either, only a couple of years in tertiary neonatal settings.
There are factors other than gestation which are really important, particularly at extremely premature gestations: size/weight, whether there has been time to give antenatal steroids, whether the mother/baby are sick (for example from womb infection), sex of the baby, multiple pregnancy, other complicating factors (the baby has had inadequate fluid for lung development, the baby has another congenital illness/syndrome etc). These factors cumulatively affect the chances of the baby. Location of birth is also very important but often, if the location is not optimised then there hasn't been time to discuss options so an assumption will be made to resuscitate if the baby has signs of life.
The condition of the baby itself at birth is perhaps the most important thing for extremely premature babies, which isn't always possible to predict. The discussion with parents tries to cover all of the options & might reach a conclusion eg we will resuscitate if baby has a good breathing effort and colour at birth, but if baby is floppy, grey and not crying we will let them pass away peacefully. Parents are very involved in these decisions, though sometimes they want us to make the choice for them / guide their choice quite a lot. There's a balance to be struck. I don't want to lead anyone into a decision, but the choice can be an enormous burden & I do want to ease that burden and it's my job to provide the context/perspective that many parents naturally won't have.
Fundamentally yes - parents of (otherwise completely healthy / optimal) 22/23 weekers would usually be presented with all of the options, including the option to do nothing at birth. And that would be their choice. Ultimately the choice to do nothing could stretch all the way up to term depending on the individual factors of the baby if those factors mean there isn't a good chance of survival or the baby will need very aggressive resuscitation.
As a rule it's not generally considered appropriate to do chest compressions and certainly not to give resuscitation drugs for extremely premature babies (22/23/24/25 & potentially up to 28 depending on adversity of factors) born without respiratory effort who then go into or remain in cardiac arrest despite appropriate airway/breathing measures. I would frame this as the baby being unable to survive the stress of birth. Parents aren't really given a choice about what medical interventions are considered futile.
Generally, your specific question doesn't come up because in my experience parents are always on board if doctors advise that intervention is the right thing to do. I'm trying to imagine - I think if a baby born at 24 weeks with good factors was vigorous and breathing spontaneously then we would support them, even if parents had expressed they didn't want this - I've never come across this situation though or heard of it. 22/23 babies are generally much less vigorous / breathe less and therefore keeping them alive is immediately more invasive from just minutes after birth, combined with worse outcomes it's a reasonable option to decline all of that. But I find that parents rarely do.
Generally, parents want to intervene, perhaps too much but they are the ones who have to live with consequences and the feelings, not me. I think parents find the "what if" (my baby could have survived) too difficult I think. It's easier to live with, we tried, it didn't work and then we let go.