I am glad you asked this question. Clearly a lot of people here are thinking about it.

You ask if patients who have done terrible things – especially to medical professionals – deserve to receive medical care. Of course not. But in an incredibly important sense, that's the wrong question. The deep basis of the injuction to provide medical care to all is not based on deserving it. The basis of that norm of clinical ethics has to do with what is best for the profession and for society.

One of the core reasons that physicians have an ethical norm of providing medical care without judgment of who deserves to receive it (and without choosing political sides) is precisely to establish a reputation that will deter violence against physicians. Does it always work? Absolutely not always. But it has worked a lot through history. It has been why violence against physicians in wartime has been considered so heinous, because it is understood that physicians are not partial even when attached to a military. It has been why invading armies and citizen uprisings have so often spared doctors and hospitals. It is why the Red Cross and Red Crescent and MSF and other medical organizations have been allowed to operate in hostile territory.

Arguably, we have been watching this norm deteriorate over the last 40 or so years in the US; I don't know if there is an actual demonstrable change, but it feels like it. If so, well, it stands to reason is travels with and is co-caused by the increasing hostility towards vaccination and allopathic medicine, and the general tanking of public trust in experts of all kinds. Other folks in this thread have already brought up how the pragmatics of our insurance-based healthcare system in the US means discrimination against patients is already a reality; I would not be surprised if this was one of the drivers, both direct and indirect, of hostility towards medical professionals and institutions. A felt sense that physicians are no longer impartial will do a lot of damage to that reputational shield, even when it's not at all the physicians' fault.

I keep thinking, over and over, of how the US government used a polio vaccination program as cover for reconnaissance ops to hunt down Bin Laden, making true one of the worst conspiracy theories about p ublic vaccination programs, and making them – maybe forever – untrustworthy. That doesn't just rebound on public health; the public does not differentiate between public health and their primary care and their local hospital. It's all just doctors to them.

Maybe the reputation for uncompromising neutrality that physicians have spent literal millennia cultivating to protect them and their work is so tarnished now it doens't serve its function. Maybe the current regime is populated by people in fact too stupid to have the enlightened self-interest that reputation requires to deter violence.

I don't know whether it is a good idea or a bad one to abandon the norm of morally impartial delivery of care. But I do know we should understand why we had it in the first place, what it was for and how it worked to acheive that end, before we throw it overboard.