What do you think about mandatory seat belt and helmet laws?

I think it’s smart to wear them, and stupid not to. However, I think the law should only cover minor children, not adults who choose to be stupid.

http://www.fluther.com/24541/piggybacking-on-the-seatbelt-question-do-you-think-motorcycle-ridersdrivers-should/

Blast from the Fluther past.

This happens to be one of the laws with which I am in agreement. If it weren’t for this law I might not wear mine so often and quite possibly would be putting myself at terrible risk.

The real question is, “Is the fine for not wearing your seatbelt exorbitant and cruel and unusual punishment?”

The oppression of the majority. I am much more opposed to the helmet laws than seatbelts but the issue remains the same. I don’t need a law to protect me from myself. I gave up riding my motorcycle simply because I don’t enjoy it with a helmet on. It should be no bodies business but my own.

Seatbelts are even stranger since most cars now have air bags front and side which do a better job than seat belts. Nonetheless we continue to make seat belts mandatory so that you can be arrested. The cops can’t tell if you have air bags but seat belts can be seen.

We have 23,000 pages of federal laws and nobody knows how many individual laws. In addition we have up to 300,000 federal regulations (nobody knows exactly) that carry the weight of law. Both the seat belt law and the helmet law fall into the federal regulation category because the NHTSA has demanded the states pass them or face a loss of highway funds. It would seem to me that we have bigger issues than trying to protect me from myself.

Safety wise they are smart laws but I’ve not worn a bicycle helmet in at least 6 years. Just don’t care for it.

I support both laws. I don’t understand why they don’t provide seatbelts on school buses.

@Jaxk Your logic for seatbelts existing to get you arrested is severely flawed. The most obvious is that not wearing a seatbelt will not get you arrested. It will get you ticketed.
I’ll stop there, but your opinion of what is really behind these laws is poorly informed.

Seatbelt laws make sense to me for 1 very good reason other than the obvious. Seatbelts keep you in the drivers seat and more time than I can count I have had to execute serious swerve maneuvers to avoid animals debris and texting drivers and without seat belts I would not have remained in the driver seat and then been a very serious accident and out of control cars often careen and take out other drivers or pedestrians. Seat belts save live and prevents serious accidents.

I have witnessed the aftermath of helmetless motorcyclists and the ones that didn’t die and minus the Gary Busey motorcyclists, most wouldn’t be caught without a helmet. That said we really shouldn’t legislate stupidity. The only argument for helmet laws is the reduction in medical and rehabilitative costs.

I know a man who wiped out really bad on his bike during a rally ride and after the accident he couldn’t see because his scalp was laying over his face. He started a first-aid training course for his bike club and others all because out of 80 riders not one knew first-aid and could help him. He now rides with a helmet.

@filmfann I always wondered that myself. A school bus, you’d think it would be the first to uphold such a rule.
One of my guesses is, if there is an accident, it will be easier for all the kids to get out if they need to. When I was in school we had ’‘bus drills’’ where they showed us how to properly exit a bus through the back door and the windows. We never did the roof traps though. They showed us how to open them and all, but not the actual exiting through thereof.
I suppose if there was an accident and all the kids had their belts on, they might panic too much and not be able unbuckle themselves, especially the really young kids.

So I don’t know. Just glad that most bus drivers are extremely good drivers…but that doesn’t stop shitty drivers elsewhere to crash into the buses and all. :/ I’ve atcually seen it happen once, but thankfully it was a very minor crash. In fact the car who hit the bus jolted on its wheels like a jack in the box.

With many vehicles having airbags I think mandatory seatbelts for them is on the overkill side, but over all I see it overall as good seatbelt wise. With bikes, I do not see it necessary to make mandatory. If one is really careful of how and where they ride, they don’t crash, (or maybe that is just me). Even though it would be wise and smart for a motorcycle, I would make it optional for them.

I’ve been on a bus that lost control on ice. Did a 90 degree slide across incoming traffic and ended up in a snow bank. It was pandemonium on that bus, even with a very minor slide. I got off and caught the next bus. I don’t know that I would have wanted to be trapped in there with all those people panicking, but I would rather have an option on freeways and such.

For those of you that keep making an airbag argument… Airbags don’t do shit in a rollover accident, nor will they keep you from ejecting out through the windshield.

I think it should be free choice, however, it is, clearly, the smart thing to do.
Admittedly though, being an avid horsewoman for years, while smart, I freaking HATE wearing a riding helmet. Hot, sweaty, annoying, and really kinda ruins the free spiritedness of riding.
Still…I am lucky, have taken a lot of falls over the years, pre-helmet, and other than destroying my left shoulder my skull remains intact. haha

@GloPro

I think you are having trouble with what defines arrest. I find your opinion ill informed. Once an officer detains you, you’re arrested.

You don’t get detained, you get pulled over. Next time you get pulled over, ask the officer if you are being arrested or detained. He will say no, ticket you, and you are free to go.

I got a ticket once for not wearing a seatbelt. It was in no way an arrest. Sitting in your car for 10 to 15 minutes while the officer researches your information and writes you a ticket does not qualify as an arrest. If I were asked “Were you ever arrested?” the answer is “no.” The answer would not be “I received a ticket, so, yes.”

@jca Thank you. @Jaxk didn’t actually read his own link. Even it defines the difference.

@GloPro @jca The link actually uses a traffic stop as an example of arrest.

Example A driver is stopped for a routine traffic violation. The driver technically is under arrest because the driver is not free to leave until the officer has written a ticket (or if it’s the driver’s lucky day, only issued a warning). But the arrest is temporary.

I like both. I do think it makes sense to “legislate stupidity”...because stupidity tends to spread, if it isn’t actively kept at bay.

@GloPro

Still having trouble I see. Maybe you should read the link before you comment on it.

Just ask a police officer if you are being detained. I assure you, you are not. Not unless you are being a disagreeable jerk. No cooperative citizen would ever be detained, and rarely an incooperative one. I can see how you may be detained if you are pulled over, though.
If you want to tell people you’ve been arrested, go for it. Whatever gets you the rebellious attention you seek.

It costs $70 billion a year in medical and lost wages costs for people injured due to not wearing a seatbelt.

53% of motor vehicle deaths were due to a lack of seatbelt restraint.

Less than 25% if ejected victims survive.

Seatbelts have saved 255,000 lives since 1975. Ask those people if they are greatful to be alive.

Source

I am with the group that believes I am allowed to be as stupid as I want in regards to my own safety and held to srict standards when it comes to the safety of minors.

@GloPro

Detained means you can’t leave. I think most people would agree that when pulled over for even the most minor infraction, you can’t leave until the officer tells you, you can leave. You are in fact detained.

As for your stats, I have no problem with them. I’m actually a little surprised that 25% of those ejected survive. Seems like you could make the case for wearing seat belts without the force of law to assist. If those people are grateful to be alive, they certainly don’t need the law. Nor do I but for different reasons.

I don’t have an opinion because it’s too vast an issue to rubber stamp, but I will always use them. Well except for bicycle helmets because they’re ugly.

Even without a seatbelt law I’ll continue to wear mine. I’m not a safety nut, either. My insurance is pretty high because all I (use to) do is speed on the highway, and although I know I’m reckless at times I always signal before switching, try to have solid lane discipline etc.

If your car has airbags and you crash, you will be severely injured by the airbag if you are not wearing your seat belt.

I heard that nurses used to call motorcycle riders “organ donors”. The number of such donors dropped after helmet laws were enacted.

All very good. This from a person who was thrown out of a vehicle in an accident, pinned under the vehicle, and soaked in gasoline. Furthermore, along with helmets, eye protection should be mandatory when riding motorcycles.

I was in an accident where the car hit a culvert, and according to my friend following me, it spun around twice in the air and turned over at least ½ roll, maybe a roll and a half. I don’t know, I was out. I would have been airmailed out the car except for the seatbelt and shoulder harness. Think I don’t wear them ever?

@Jaxk: I can find many legal sites (will provide links if you want) that describe an arrest as being what we traditionally think of as an arrest, with having to be read Miranda rights, and then being removed to a jail or court. Even your link explains that someone who is written a ticket does not have to answer “yes” when asked if they have ever been arrested, which shows that it’s not considered an arrest legally, on job applications or other types of information.

Further investigation reveals that An arrest occurs whenever a reasonable person ‘would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree So in a sense @Jaxk‘s link is correct to illustrate when you are pulled over you are momentarily “arrested” but at the same time the sentiment that the person detained has full comprehension and understanding as to why the were pulled over in the first place opens up the debate to whether that person detained by the Police Officer fully understands why they are pulled over.

I got pulled over one time and asked the officer as to why and he informed me that a car identical in description to my car was alleged to have been involved in a battery incident which not only gave them license to pull me over and detain me but proceed to frisk me and rip my car to pieces looking for something to bust me for. They failed and I left feeling violated and pissed off at the license to abuse LEO’s had to infringe upon the freedoms of normal 17 year olds driving hot rod muscle cars. 35 years later I have not fully recovered from my distrust of LEO’s true intentions.

@Crazydawg What happened to you was illegal search and seizure. If your recount is as depicted you were violated and that was not within the scope of the law. That’s why it is important to know what your rights are. If you are pulled in a checkpoint all you have to do is repeat “Am I being detained?” in response to any question asked of you, including asking for your ID and registration. Without probable cause the police cannot violate your rights unless you offer permission by answering questions and providing info. Any questioning and temporary detainment without probable cause can not be carried over if YOU press the issue and insist on going about your day.

Both laws have saved countless lives.

@GloPro I am and was fully aware of the BS traffic stop and that they fabricated their story just to check out the local teen to see what trouble I might be up to. I even protested the BS traffic stop and was promptly yanked out of the car and stood helplessly by as they searched me and the car. When they were satisfied I was not drunk and had no contraband they let me go but not after telling me I had one hell of a car. Bastards!

In a country that bleats on and on about insurance costs and covering the uninsured, I would think that everyone could agree that seat belts and helmets should be mandatory. If someone shows up in the ER because they were showing their stupidity, they are draining the resources of the medical staff. They aren’t getting to that kid with appendicitis, or that woman in her last trimester who is bleeding. All because some idiot yelled ‘MerkA!’ and went off without a helmet on. Next time ANY of you get in your car and don’t put a seatbelt on, or get on your motorcycle without a helmet, REMEMBER that kid or that pregnant woman having to wait because your brains were hanging out of your skull.
Both of my sisters that work in hospitals refer to motorcyclists as organ donors.

To add to what @cazzie said, that person will then be needing intensive rehab, physical therapy, occupational therapy, perhaps speech therapy, and then when and if they are lucky enough to return home, they’ll need home care – someone to help with their ADL’s (Activities of Daily Living like going to the bathroom, bathing, eating), transport, laundry, etc. Plus more therapy. Plus medications. Plus doctor visits and tests. Who’s paying for that? The person who feels like they should be able to do whatever they want? No. Either their auto insurance, which is ultimately a big pool, or their medical insurance, which is ultimately a big pool, or the taxpayers in the form of Medicaid or Disability. So ultimately, everyone pays for this person’s decision. Just because there are air bags does not mean that the car is like being enveloped in a giant marshmallow.

That is true. We all pay for other’s stupid decisions. When they go to the hospital and can’t pay, we all pick up the tab next time we go and our insurance pays.

“We all pay for other’s stupid decisions.” – Thank you.

The law is a blatant disregard for individual freedom. To reconcile costs with individual freedom, the health-care model needs to act like the auto insurance model where your premiums are unchanged when someone else’s brains are splattered on the road and even lowered if you have a record that is clear of any accidents and speeding tickets. In addition, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act should be repealed so that hospitals can deny care to those without insurance.

Huh, so your opinion is to let people unable to verify insurance on the spot bleed out right there on the highway in front of everyone? Seems legit.

Huh, how long do you think it takes to verify insurance? And even, for argument sake, it takes long, all that means is the model needs to be tuned to efficiency (verification would be immediate) before implementation.

How do you verify the insurance if they went through the windshield, are unconscious and about to die? Where and what are the priorities there?

No helmet = don’t care and automatic organ donor… thank you for your thoughtlessness.

Actually, @cazzie, if you die on the scene your organs are useless. Tissue must continue to be perfused so it doesn’t die. Necropsy begins the moment your organs lack oxygen.

@GloPro

What does unconsciousness have to do with his/her credentials?

What?!? That makes no sense. Driver’s License is not connected to insurance. If you are advocating tying the two you are advocating more government interference. That directly conflicts with not wanting a seatbelt law because you want less government involvement.

@eno: Hospitals deny claims to those without insurance, so then we have sick and injured (and potentially contagious) people wandering the streets, uncared for, like a third world country?

@GloPro

I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m trying to tell you. Let me give you an example.

When you want to make changes to your bank account or credit card, you need to verify yourself with either pin numbers, passwords, ID, last for digits, security questions, or some other type of method. If you cannot verify who you’re, you will not be granted access.

Apply the same concept to driving. If you want to be treated if and when you’re injured in a car accident, then you must carry your insurance credentials with you at all times. A quick phone call, or an internet portal base, can verify if the insurance is active. More efficient methods can rely on heavier technology such as fingerprint and/or retina scans for instant results.

If a person is unconscious and doesn’t have insurance credentials, or some sort of written permission to scan him/her, then the person will be denied treatment, just like if you can’t verify who you’re to your swiss bank account, you wont get access to your millions of dollars.

@jca

Prior to obamacare, we had plenty of sick, injured, and potentially contagious people wandering the streets who were uncared for. These people are usually segregated form society, just like most poor people, so the impact is minimal to none.

Besides, there is no valid argument to violate someone’s constitutional rights just because someone has the shit end of the stick.

@eno Years ago I switched jobs and changed my insurance to my new employer. It took a while for my new insurance cards to come. In the meantime I had some stomach problems and the ER doctor had me admitted in case it was an ulcer that ripped out and started to bleed out. I had no cards, even though I had insurance, so it would have been okay for them to say I can’t be admitted and kick my ass to the curb? So it’s my problem if I bleed out?

Insurance card isn’t the only type of verification. Showing a photo ID will verify you’re “name so and so” and then they can simply verify your insurance with a quick phone call through an extension or a computer portal. These are all good what if scenarios, so instead of having me think of the detailed solutions on the whim, the point is to overhaul the system to make it rely on more newer technology for faster and more efficient verification. That will put an end to these what if scenarios.

However, the overall answer remains the same. If you were to give the same exact excuse to your swiss bank account, you would not be granted access. Simple as that. The same principle should apply for emergency care. It is just as serious as if a swiss bank granted access to a complete stranger to your swiss bank account just because he/she gave an excuse similar to your ulcer one.

@eno What country are you in?

@adriondak – welcome to America. Sounds Republican.

@eno: Prior to Obamacare was no different than it is now as far as a visit to the ER – if you’re uninsured, you’re still seen in the ER and your broken leg is casted, or your cut is stitched, or the bullet is removed from your body, or whatever is wrong with you is taken care of. Your statement about the poor being segregated from society makes no sense. Poor people that we can’t see should be walking around with broken legs or bleeding?

For ER care, yes. Non-ER care, it was as I described.

I gave you my answer. Constitutional rights that guarantee individual freedom should not be violated because someone cannot afford care. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a violation of freedom and should be repealed. Obamacare violates constitutional rights as well and should be repealed.

The point of my argument was to reconcile the burden of costs for those who are innocent with individual freedom. My argument was never in favor of violating constitutional rights so that poor people can get free care.

Despite the reasons that motorcyclists use to justify not wearing helmets I can think of several reasons why I’m not a fan of wearing seat belts too.

My stand on this issue is as simple as this: I don’t support mandatory seat belt or helmet laws, period. However, if these laws are going to be implemented then either both bikers and motorists wear their required protection, or none of them do.

@eno I’m sorry. I’m trained in an emergency situation to assess critical threats to life. It violates my personal ethics and my duty to act not to provide life saving interventions. Your ideas are not in line with the way those of us in the medical field are trained and engrained.

Nothing to be sorry about. This is an opinion question. You have your personal ethics, I have mine.

You’re trained that way because of the type of laws we have now. If laws were to change, then so will your training. You will be trained by your employer to efficiently verify an injured driver’s ability to pay for treatment prior to providing care freely. Given your personal ethics, it is safe to say you will most likely quit your career if the employer were to put you in that position, but until that happens, these unconstitutional acts are in your favor.

I believe the right to life trumps any financial situation. Those of us acting as emergency medical responders all inherently believe this, and must do so in order to react instinctively to emergencies.
I also see the need for no offense cold business ethics such as yours. However, the basic right to life, in my opinion, trumps money. If someone without insurance is hit by a drunk driver through no fault of their own, there is no way that I would ever follow any protocol that tells me to watch them die. I do not want to live in a world that exists in that manner. Luckily, your vision will never come to fruition.

@eno Because life saving health care is exactly like needing access to your bank account. ???? Everyone deserves health care. It is a basic human right. To think otherwise is to revert back to the days of barbarianism.

Clearly he is not familiar with how fast shit goes down in life-threatening emergencies. @eno would be upper management in a healthcare environment. Definitely NOT front line first responder status.

I still maintain your ideas to track insurance verification is an advocate for greater government tracking and interference. It doesn’t make sense to me that more monitoring and government is somehow better than a simple seatbelt law.

@cazzie

It should be like accessing a bank account.

Everyone deserves individual freedom. It is a basic human right. To think otherwise is to revert back to the days of barbarianism.

@GloPro

Of course I’m aware of how it goes down that is why I’m proposing a system overhaul. There are some amazing technological tools now that can be implemented for first-responders. Verification of payment can be instantaneous.

You misunderstood. I never mentioned government, anywhere. First-responders should be privatized either solely or work for private/charity sponsored hospitals. The first-responders would be providing everyone with a service, just like a credit card company does and just you would use your credit card to pay for a product or service, they need check the card for its ability to pay. There is no government at all. In fact, such an overhaul would shrink it.

There are already private ambulance companies that will pump you for insurance info on scene. I personally prefer to stay out of the financials and concentrate on what the purpose of an EMS system is intended. My city Fire/EMS are tied together and city operated. Trust me, there are stern scoldings about budgets and money regularly. I prefer a government operated EMS system.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the plausibility. How does an EMS unit come upon this, with multiple victims, maybe some like this, and propose to find any insurance information in that mess? You can’t pop open a glove box and pull it out, and it’s a madhouse scene sometimes… Walk me through your vision.

Also, explain how EMS would react if they don’t have insurance… Same crash scenes.

I mentioned an idea, earlier. Fingerprint or retina scans.

I’m sorry, your idea just isn’t plausible in a real world emergency scenario. Time is critical, and even one minute can be the difference in life and death. I can only imagine the lawsuits from insured individuals and their families for failure to provide quality care expediently because I’m waiting to see if you have insurance and you die or are permanently affected. That is negligence any way you look at it.

Also, what would EMS do if they don’t have insurance. I know you want to reinvent the wheel and eradicate laws, but currently it is against the law for me not to act if responding to an emergency. It would be unethical for me to pick and choose who gets treatment.

Scans are instantaneous. It doesn’t sound like keep up with tech much. Google glasses, for example, can see every single property of a car and the objects inside. An Israeli company already developed a technology that uses light to show the properties of any single object.

There is so much tech out there that you can get your verification in a few seconds. That is far from negligence.

Currently, you do as the law requires. Repeal the laws, and you do as any other service does – deny service. You help those who can pay.

So we’re back to leaving them on the side of the road to die.

I’m going to stop here. That is cruel and heartless and would never fly. I refuse to believe that you have no empathy at all for another human in distress. If that is truly your viewpoint then I feel bad for you. We’ll just have to drop the subject.

@eno

You seem to be making the assumption that the only way to pay for medical services is with insurance. That is not the case even if we were willing let the city services scape people up like road kill.

@GloPro

Taking/using without approval of others is called stealing. That is cruel and heartless. That is what the government does when it enacts laws that undermine individual choice.

Don’t make the mistake of correlating empathy with compassion/sympathy. Those don’t have to go hand-in-hand. Where you might be pro-social, I’m A-social for others, pro-social for family. A psychopath/sociopath is anti-social. Everyone of them is capable of empathy, they just build on it differently.

@Jaxk

Pay with cash, pay with credit cards, pay with paypal. Pay however you want, as long as you pay.

@eno – Sorry, I find you world view fascinating, even if a bit cluttered with dead bodies. In your world would the medics be allowed to shoot those in pain that have been denied credit (poor risk I assume) like they do horses? If so who has to pay for the bullet? If not who has to clean up the mess afterwards? If it’s in front of my house is it my responsibility to get rid of the body? Isn’t there a danger of disease, afterall 8760 people die per hour in the US. A one hour outage of your web site (remember it’s a government web site) could really stack up the bodies.

If I have a heart attack do the paramedics carry credit applications or should I make sure I have one in my pocket?

Alan Grayson of Florida mentioned to congress some time back that health care in America is this: “Don’t get sick. If you get sick, die quickly.” It’s all about the money!

@Jaxk

The owners put down their own horses, not someone else’s and horses don’t give consent the same way as humans, so if the person in pain allows the medic to end his suffering, then I don’t see why it should be a problem. It maybe a problem because it is a verbal agreement. If the medic were to be accused of murder, his evidence would die with the man who was injured. A recording of the verbal agreement would avoid such an issue perhaps a couple of witnesses. If the employer won’t pay for the bullet, then the medic will (if they choose to follow through with the request) or they just deny the request and save a bullet.

To take a step back, roads should be privatized. Therefore, as an owner of the road, his/her incentive is to keep traffic smooth, therefore, he/she would take care of the body since it is on his property and the owner of the wreckage is dead including his own body. However, since the person incharge of the road is not in the service of taking care of bodies, he/she would hire a service that removes wreckage/bodies. This, in turn, resolves problems with disease. It is the same type of service you call when you have dead animals on the road or on your property.

We produce garbage and don’t want it in our face, so we’re willing to pay a service to pick up our trash and so a service is born to meet the demand.

Now instead of wasting time with all the fine details here, I can answer in a simpler way. Well defined property rights resolve all issue of property and responsibility. If property rights are breached, you try and resolve it with the breacher, or you take it to court.

A good business would carry credit card applications so not to limit payment options for their customers. If you don’t trust anyone, then carry one on your own if you want. Read their policy and procedures before acquiring their service.

One more thing, if you find a dead body on your property, you can leave it there if you want, but if the body starts to breach other people’s property (smell, fly’s, pollution, what have you), those people will ask you to resolve the issue or you will be sued and forced to pay for breach of property. But I suspect that you, personally, don’t want a rotting dead body on your property either, so you will call a service and have it taken care of.

Basically, everything what we have now will be privatized.and property and responsibility will be resolved with well defined property rights. We will return to personal responsibility.

You can charge family members, relatives, friend of the deceased to pay for the expenses. Maybe you won’t have to do anything, they will take care of it upfront.

Or maybe charity organizations, philanthropists will step up to the game and pick up the slack for those who cannot pay.

This question has taken an interesting turn, and I am going to ask this as a new question (later on today when I have time). I invite you all, @eno and everyone else, to weigh in with your opinions.

The idea that personal freedom and universal healthcare are mutually exclusive is a fallacious argument.

@cazzie

If abortion is banned, universally, does a woman still have a choice to abort? No, it is outlawed.

Now, following the same logical argument, if a universal health care law passes, does a person still have a choice to opt-out (not pay taxes for it) ? No, you go to jail if you don’t pay taxes.

So since universal is clearly undermining personal choice, how can the two work together?

Now I can give you an entire list of reasons for why someone wouldn’t want to pay and why it should be privatized, but if my personal freedom is truly protected, I don’t have to give you any reason, I can simply choose not to pay.

http://www.fluther.com/171760/do-you-think-that-someones-ability-to-access-healthcare-including-emergency/

Please all, weigh in here.

As a society, we don’t let people who crash their cars or fall off ski lifts deny themselves medical care. They get treated. Tell me again how wrong we are? We also provide this service 4 times as efficient as the US model. Tell me again how capitalism improves health care?

I understand how the system works now, but nothing in your reply shows me how personal freedom and universal health care work together. If anything, you have shown me how universal health care destroys personal freedom. So you’re wrong in a human right sense.

You’re basically granting 1 human right to one group of people (the right to be treated) and denying another human right for another group of people (freedom of choice) at the same time. Only a system that grants and protects both would resolve this issue.

@eno
You seem to fail a basic understanding of human nature and societies.

Interdependencies are the only way we can survive. No one can live, without at some level being dependent on others. With that dependency comes a responsibilty.

Now to what level an individual needs to yield to the interests of society, is up for debate. One end of the spectrum, where the individual has no value and is totally subservient to the community is a scary thought to most of us. It prepares the road for mass misery.

The other side of the spectrum creates same levels of misery in my view. Absolute personal freedom is an idée fixe. You will always be bound by rules, morals and reality.

On top… You are creating a strawman argument. No one is forcing doctors to be doctors, nor is anyone forcing them to work for free. Where did you get that notion?

The right to treatment is a system level choice, not one on an individual level. The right to refuse treatment has nothing to with the right to the right to receive it.

Do you propose a doctor should have the right to halfway a procedure call it a day? To tell his patient ‘I am done… here’s your money back, go fix yourself up?’

That notion is rediculous. Doctors have taken upon themselves a role and with that role come responsibilities. If you chose the role of ER doctor, you help whoever walks in.

The right to treatmen doesn’t mean a doctor shall not be paid.

You whole argument is nonsense.

Please take it to my current question about the ability to pay being dependent on the ability to receive health care.

@whitenoise

I believe you created some strawmans and fallacious arguments here but I don’t think that was your intention. You simply misinterpreted my choice of words (right to have treatment) and built your argument on that, so you can either read/re-read my previous replies in this question, or for clarity of my position, you can read my new response in @jca‘s new question. link