The assertion you are making is not supported by common law:

Under common law a physician has traditionally not been required to undertake the care of someone who is not already a patient. This reflects the position that no person is required to provide assistance to another except in exceptional circumstances.10,11,12 As summarized in St. John v. Pope (Texas Supreme Court, 1995), "Professionals do not owe a duty to exercise their particular talents, knowledge, and skill on behalf of every person they encounter in the course of the day … It is only with a physician's consent, whether express or implied, that the doctor–patient relationship comes into being."13 On the basis of the principle of contract law, that both parties must assent to the creation of a relationship, the right of refusal has been extended to emergency situations even when no other physician is available.14,15

10. Linden AM. Canadian tort law. 6th ed. Toronto: Butterworths; 1997. p. 284-99.
11. Fleming JG. The law of torts. 9th ed. Sydney (Australia): LBC Information Services; 1998. p. 162-72.
12. Klar LN. Tort law. 2nd ed. Scarborough (ON): Carswell; 1996. p. 147-69.
13. St. John v. Pope, 901 SW 2d 420 at 423 (Texas SC 1995).
14. Hurley v. Eddingfield, 59 NE 1058 (1901).
15. Fought v. Solce, 821 SW 2d 218 (Tex Ct Civ App 1991).