If it’s mandated by law, yes.
What would you call it if you were required to work—paid or otherwise—under threat of criminal punishment?
What would you call it if you were required to work—paid or otherwise—under threat of criminal punishment?
The question was, “why shouldn’t doctors be required to treat patients?” It wasn’t, “should doctors treat some patients regardless of ability to pay?” There’s a big difference between these. The first is about compelled behavior; the second is about voluntary behavior.
There’s an analogy in the legal world in the U.S.: while lawyers aren’t required to take cases for free, there’s a time-honored tradition of reserving some time to take some cases for free (aka pro bono).
I've heard the arguments, so if you're thinking you're going to win an argument with me about whether this means anything or not, you're not; but supplemental information about why what's printed on our money doesn't mean it's legally money to pay a debt to a doctor, go for it.
First, in a non-urgent situation, you’re going to be asked about payment prior to service, and they may refuse to treat you if you can’t pay.
Second, in an emergency situation where you’re unable to provide affirmative assent, you’ll be liable for costs under the doctrine of quantum meruit (quasi-contract). If you don’t pay, the provider can sue you, in which case, the court may force you to pay on their terms.