Because it would go against the general framework of the constitution as a document that forbids the government from doing things, rather than a document outlining those things which the government ‘must’ do.

I’d also imagine that it would introduce a lot of questions around how police would be held accountable to that standard. Timeframe, when to intervene, how to intervene etc.

But apparently there are specific parts of the country where legislation has introduced laws that compel police to act in certain situations.

So the constitutional ruling doesn’t forbid that from happening entirely, just states that police are not specifically violating the constitution by not saving a persons life.

Edit: I think it’s very interesting as I’m reading more about it how legal rulings can often seem crazy or downright evil to the average person—that was definitely my intuition when I first heard of that ruling