After an argument with his wife, Russell Pelo bought a shotgun and made threats of self-harm. In accordance with state law, he was detained in a hospital psychiatric unit for examination after a federal judge found him seriously mentally impaired. After Pelo was released, he refused to pay the hospital bill or allow his health insurer to pay it. When sued for the hospital bill, Pelo said he should not have to pay because he did not want to be hospitalized. Must he pay for services he did not want? Justify your position.

This was a real case that took place in Iowa during 1995, and the court ruled against Pelo since he is responsible for paying the private hospital bill under a contract implied in law. A contract implied in law is defined as any contract that doesn't require a party's explicit acceptance. Contracts implied in law do not require a bargaining process due to special circumstances.

Explanation:

This makes sense, since no seriously injured patient is able to give express consent to a hospital so that they can cure him/her. It is the hospital's duty to take care of patients even if they are conscious or not, or even if they do not wish to be treated, cured or even saved. Therefore, the patients are liable for the expenses even if they didn't agree with them.

answer; /// the best answer to the above question is; the main economic goal that a society consider when deciding the best way to distribute its wealth is equity, this to ensure that all resources are equally distributed; ///(a) (economic equity)