Eberhard Weber

This is not to disagree with you, not at all.

However, unfortunately, more than "the economic interest of a hospital' is involved in the context. That tells something about the world that we have created for us. Incidentally, we are talking about a country that imprisoned the US physician Samuel Alexander Mudd for conspiring with John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, because Mudd treated an injured Booth with no question asked.

important question, but difficult to answer. Health services all over the world are under severe pressures. In developed countries demographic issues as well as increasing cost of health service delivery are major issues, in developing countries resource limitations of more general nature restrict health care provision. The whole gets even more complicated through historical issues: people have enjoyed particular coverage and when this i snot more possible and is eroded at times then public protest is the result. What citizens can 'demand' might be an issue of the political powers they have rather what than what medical services are possible. However, such single issues usually do not decide elections, unless they concern big parts of the electorate which can be united on such issues.

Human rights.

What is the value of a right that has no enforcement mechanism? Zero. Talk is cheap, VERY cheap.

Sign? Sure, I will sign all the documents. It is a little tiring for me to sign so many documents, but for the greater good of humanity, I will sign. A right with zero enforceable obligations has ZERO value.

There are countries, where a right to medical treatment is indeed something state must provide. I think it is reasonable not to think of it as a unique entitlement but rather as something that depends on the wealth of the corresponding country. But I can hardly imagine a developed country that does not safeguard a minimum level of medical treatment to the population. [Perhaps the Bismarckian legacy in my mind-set...]

In the U.S., we have a crazy law. A hospital must treat anyone who comes into the Emergency Room and cannot ask any questions about citizenship and health insurance.

How about in your country? Do you have such a wonderful law? If not, why not?

To treat people without first checking on their insurance status and nationality and citizenship is certainly not a "crazy law", but the result of the Human Rights Charta the USA has signed. Much older is the Hippocratic Oath

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Eberhard Weber Do such laws exist in all EU countries and all the signatories of the Human Rights Charts?

Medical care and medicine should be a basic human right! Understanding health as a human right creates a legal obligation on states to ensure access to timely, acceptable, and affordable health care of appropriate quality as well as to providing for the underlying determinants of health, such as safe and potable water, sanitation, food, housing, & health-related information.

These rights are useless and worthless if they are not implemented. Only beautiful sounding words on documents that only diplomats have time to read.

Dear Joseph Tham , it's not just paper as long as some countries committed themselves to implement national laws and citizens can sue the governments unless they do so. Besides, also signatory countries that ignore the international agreements may feel some sort of moral pressure.

What concerns medical treatment in emergency cases, I think such a law is an achievement. The case is special in the US, as there is no general coverage with health insurance. In most European countries, more or less the entire population is covered by some health plan. Then, it's not a big issue to treat people and care about who pays for it later on. I guess, even for those few exceptions, where people do not have health insurance coverage and who are unable to afford hospital treatment, most Europeans would consider it a social responsibility to help out with tax-based subsidies.

I agree with Thomas that it is worth a thousands of time (and even more) when such laws exist in individual countries. Nobody can expect of me to know, if all countries in Europe have such laws (especially as I am not living in Europe), but to write "In the U.S., we have a crazy law. A hospital must treat anyone who comes into the Emergency Room and cannot ask any questions about citizenship and health insurance" tells a lot as it gives the impression that the author thinks that it should be differently. We have to make a value judgement: what is more important: the economic interest of a hospital, or the right of a person to be free of pain, to be attended by a doctor, to have a place where treatment can happen in dignity. I have not the slightest doubts which of the two I will always favor, without any exception.

Eberhard Weber

Sure it is a great idea to provide free medical care in the ER, no questions asked. Where do the financial resources come from? Manna from heaven? Please think of the funding sources.

Indeed, it is not just the hospital's businesses to care for emergency cases and provide the treatment. I consider the right to an elementary medical care as the reason for compulsory insurance coverage. There are various types how to provide coverage (e.g., tax bases, private insurance companies, or public health plans). But everyone expects to be treated in emergency. And society in a developed country should arrange an affordable way to get protection.

Thomas Neusius To ANY person who walks in through the ER door, regardless of citizenship?

Eberhard Weber

This is not to disagree with you, not at all.

However, unfortunately, more than "the economic interest of a hospital' is involved in the context. That tells something about the world that we have created for us. Incidentally, we are talking about a country that imprisoned the US physician Samuel Alexander Mudd for conspiring with John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, because Mudd treated an injured Booth with no question asked.

Dear @Joseph Tamm,

indeed, in case of emergency and acut need of help, I think most doctors will help first and ask questions later - everyone who needs treatment urgently. In a country with nearly all inhabitants covered by health plans, it is a rare event that the hospital cannot bill the costs to some insurance. In those few cases, I could accept the tax payer to refund the hospital. Besides, there are quite some doctors who treat people without legal status free of charge. As said, I think that is part of common sense in most European countries.

Thomas Neusius How about non-European countries? Is it morally obligatory? Or does it exist only in those rich countries who can afford such a luxurious policy?

In an extreme emergency case, I would consider it indeed a moral obligation to help. Of course, in less extreme cases, the level of care that can be provided to non-paying patients will depend on the country's wealth.