Analyze

This policy was received in good light by the public for the most part. Patients were only to benefit from this, especially those who lacked insurance. Even those with insurance didn't have to waste time proving it any longer, they were treated and stabilized and insurance issues and payment were brought up later. Any ethically sound doctors, such as the ones working in hospitals that were already implementing the actions set forth by EMTALA (before it was law) had no issues with EMTALA. No doctor should have any issues with it due to their duty to act as well as ethical and moral standards they should be holding themselves up to, written in their oath they took to become doctor. The only people that would stand to receive this act negatively would be the doctors who were actively turning away patients in need, who are clearly morally compromised. Yet, media, patients, a majority of doctors and staff found and received this act positively or with little reservation.

It was well received in large when it was signed into law by President Ronald Regan in 1986. The need, benefits, and issues brought about that. The only negative was the potential to cheap the system and steal from hospitals by those who are able to pay but don’t. This issue is not really a major issue because patients still get billed and there are still repercussions for not paying bills but if the need for urgent care is real it could save your life; however about 6% of hospital services are never paid for, thus not completely an unreal threat.