OK, how about as a thought exercise, I give you a few examples, and you tell me what you think you would do as the paramedic on scene:
A motorcycle rider is in an accident, and is not wearing a helmet. He takes a blow to the head and is dazed and confused. He does not want to go to the hospital and threatens violence if you try. Do you accept his refusal?
Depends on the nature of his refusal. If he states 'it is against my religion' then yea, you NEED to walk away. If it is clear that his head injury is affecting THAT DECISION then he is good to go. However, he can be dazed and confused (not remember the date, let's say, wobbly on his feet) and still be of sound mind enough to reject a trip to the hospital.
A 16 year old teen is in a car accident. He has an obviously broken arm, but does not want to go to the hospital. Do you accept his refusal?
Let's change this to 18, don't want to get parents involved. Yes, as long as the person is in his right mind he has EVERY right to refuse. And actually, my understanding is that this is pretty common for someone in a jurisdiction where an ambulance takes them to hospital X based on their location, that a person who has a non-life threatening injury pass on the ambulance trip, call someone else and get taken to hospital Y.
A man is intoxicated and gets in a fight. He does not remember what day it is, nor does he know the name of the city he is in. He is refusing care. Do you accept his refusal?
In this case, assuming that he failed to answer numerous 'easy questions' (and not a case of answering 8 out of 10 correctly, identified a monday as a tuesday, and identified the wrong suburb, such as stating the town was Boston rather than Summersville, which is a small suburb just north of Boston)
then the person is addled enough that he can be taken, with the caveat that if he gives a very reasonable expiation which makes it clear that at least in THIS ISSUE he is not addled, he gets to stay.
In each of those real life cases, the person is not legally able to refuse medical care because of altered mental status or because they are a minor. The law REQUIRES you to treat them, and the medic who does not is civilly and criminally liable if they do not. If you accept refusals from any of the above, you can lose your license, go to jail, and be sued for everything you own.
Absolutely false. In ALL those examples, all the person has to do is state 'It is against my religion' and you (or the city) become liable for infringing his freedom of religion.
Also note, TREAT does not instantly mean 'haul away to the hospital'
You seem to be operating under the assumption that any time YOU think someone should go to the hospital, their 'amateur opinion' disagreement with your "professional opinion" indicates proof that they are not thinking right.
The only time someone should receive medical care they do NOT want, or be transported some place they do NOT want to go is if there is VERY SOLID PROOF of mental impairment specifically related to the decision receive medical care.