Thread: Should hospitals be forced to give emergency care to the poor?

Originally Posted by Henrin

The right to life has to do with other people acting to end your life, not getting services from other people. The very premise of your post is stupid to begin with since this entire subject is a violation of human rights as it makes hospital workers slaves.

Originally Posted by Henrin

You should research the right to life before you continue to speak of it. Why would the right to life violate the right to body sovereignty by its very existence? Does that make any sense to you?

You want to put forward the notion that the right to life has nothing to do with getting the goods and services of others. However, the flaw is that you do not appear to realize that the natural resources upon which those goods and services rest, and without which they would not exist, were not created by those people, and as such, in truth, do not belong to them. Such resources were there before those persons were born, and will be there after they die. As a result of this, in the ultimate sense, they are not the true proprietors of those resources, but are merely temporarily using them to sustain their existence.

Just as natural resources exist in nature without any need for help from those persons, humans beings exist in nature, IN THE GENERAL SENSE, without the help of such persons. Because no human being is responsible for bringing those resources into existence, they cannot be said to be the proprietors and therefore the resources are there for all to use to sustain their existence. The founders of the U.S. government recognized that governments come into existence so that men can secure their natural rights such as the right to life. Otherwise, as a result of greed, some might try to usurp the resources that are there in nature in such a way that prevents others from sustaining their existence by such resources and thus deprive them of right to live. Therefore we can see that the right to life does indeed entail more people acting to end life. Rather, it also entails the sustenance of the lives of citizens.

Because governments restrict access to the resources of nature by its citizens, those governments must in return guarantee that their lives can be sustained. If they do no do so, they are merely facilitating the theft of the resources that are in nature by thieves who did not create those resources. If a government requires that a hospital give emergency care to the poor, it is facilitating the sustenance of the lives of such citizens in return for denying them access to the resources of nature. Therefore, forcing hospitals to give such emergency care is indeed related to the right to life, and is not restricted to the conditions that you put forward.

Originally Posted by Geoist

Good Samaritan law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually Duty to Rescue is the applicable concept. It is law in some countries but as far as I can tell, not the USA. Good Samaritan laws absolve "good Samaritans" volunteers from liability for errors made while they attempt to help someone in an emergency.

Originally Posted by MildSteel

You want to put forward the notion that the right to life has nothing to do with getting the goods and services of others. However, the flaw is that you do not appear to realize that the natural resources upon which those goods and services rest, and without which they would not exist, were not created by those people, and as such, in truth, do not belong to them. Such resources were there before those persons were born, and will be there after they die. As a result of this, in the ultimate sense, they are not the true proprietors of those resources, but are merely temporarily using them to sustain their existence.

Just as natural resources exist in nature without any need for help from those persons, humans beings exist in nature, IN THE GENERAL SENSE, without the help of such persons. Because no human being is responsible for bringing those resources into existence, they cannot be said to be the proprietors and therefore the resources are there for all to use to sustain their existence. The founders of the U.S. government recognized that governments come into existence so that men can secure their natural rights such as the right to life. Otherwise, as a result of greed, some might try to usurp the resources that are there in nature in such a way that prevents others from sustaining their existence by such resources and thus deprive them of right to live. Therefore we can see that the right to life does indeed entail more people acting to end life. Rather, it also entails the sustenance of the lives of citizens.

Because governments restrict access to the resources of nature by its citizens, those governments must in return guarantee that their lives can be sustained. If they do no do so, they are merely facilitating the theft of the resources that are in nature by thieves who did not create those resources. If a government requires that a hospital give emergency care to the poor, it is facilitating the sustenance of the lives of such citizens in return for denying them access to the resources of nature. Therefore, forcing hospitals to give such emergency care is indeed related to the right to life, and is not restricted to the conditions that you put forward.

Oh god. That is just a bunch of entitled nonsense. The labor that is called upon to provide you goods and services is not a natural resource nor it is open for all to own and use whenever they want. People like animals do not own anything but themselves by their mere existence, but territories and resources can be claimed and owned by anyone after they are born if they have a means to do it. The labor of your body is your property which permits you the ability to obtain property of natural resources and those items made from natural resources. Due to the ability to own your labor you have the ability to choose who you will trade with, what exactly you will trade and in what amount. If another person was to force you into trade they would aggressing on your person and property and subjecting you to slavery.

Originally Posted by Henrin

territories and resources can be claimed and owned by anyone after they are born if they have a means to do it.

That's your problem right there. IF THEY HAVE THE MEANS TO DO IT. Humans simply don't have the horses to be proprietors the natural resources of nature. All such false claims of proprietorship will be rendered sterile in the due course of time.

Originally Posted by Henrin

The labor of your body is your property which permits you the ability to obtain property of natural resources and those items made from natural resources.

The labor of your body is made possible by taking the goods and resources of nature which you did not create. You did not make the air that you breath, you did not make the water that you drink, you did not make the sunshine. None of these things came into existence by your labor. Furthermore, you did not make the body, the brain, the heart, the hands, the feet nor the legs that you have. As such, in reality, you own nothing.