Arguments on issues related to the coronavirus and the vaccine have sparked a couple of thoughts in me, one of which is the possibility that an emergency care act is essentially a violation of the freedom of doctors both as individuals and as businessmen.
An Emergency care act is a law that ensures that any individual who presents at a hospital with an emergency is attended to and treated till the individual comes out of the emergency state irrespective of the willingness and ability to pay for the services rendered. To defend this law people generally argue that since it’s a human life that’s involved, and there is an imminent threat to the life of a citizen, government interference is justified. Can this logic be applied to other situations where there is an immediate threat to human life? Let us examine a few examples
1. If a very poor family has had no food to eat in the past three days and their 2-year-old girl is in obvious need of food and water evidenced by extreme weakness, dehydration, and prostration. If she is not fed soon, she could die very soon. Should the parents have a right (protected by the constitution) to demand food from a food vendor?
2. If a homeless person was outside your home on a freezing winter night with nowhere to go, should he have a right (protected by the constitution) to demand that you let him into your home for warmth?
3. What if you owned a Five-star hotel and there was a flood in the neighborhood, should you be legally required to take in homeless people who make it to your door

Point to note: This is not a moral question but a legal question, it would surely be immoral to deny emergency care to any individual because they currently cannot afford it, just the way it’d be immoral to deny food to a starving child just because the parents have no money to pay you, but should it be illegal? And if yes, should all these examples be illegal or health care is where we draw the line