ERASED
Childs v. Weis
440 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969) · 1969
Seven months pregnant, bleeding, two in the morning. Sent away from the emergency room. The baby was born in a car and lived about twelve hours.
“A physician is under no legal obligation to practice his profession or render services to whomsoever may request them.”
The Ruling
Summary judgment for the physician affirmed. No patient-physician relationship existed, so no duty existed. A doctor may arbitrarily refuse a person urgently in need if that relationship has not been formed.
The Personhood Argument Not Made
Daisy Childs was physically present, visibly in crisis, inside the emergency room. None of that created standing. The law asked one question — was there a contract — and finding none, it had nothing further to consider. Her body was in the building and legally was not there at all. This is the sharpest available illustration of the mechanism: the law was looking at the physician and at the hospital's staffing arrangements, and the patient appeared in the analysis only as someone who had failed to become a party.
The Execution Gap Created
The hospital confirmed it did not require its emergency physicians to see everyone who arrived. The formal availability of emergency care and the enforceable right to receive it were, on this record, completely separate things. Congress later enacted EMTALA against exactly this backdrop — which is the tell: it took a federal statute to create what most people assume was always a right.
Primary sources & research
Related cases
Part of The Personhood Prism, the companion to The Execution Gap by Thomas William Hornig. See all personhood cases →