Short answer. Generally yes. Civil Code Article 2167 makes you liable to pay for medical aid given to you in an emergency, even though you were not in a condition to consent to it, unless the person who helped you did so out of pure generosity, with no intention of being paid.
What the law says
When through an accident or other cause a person is injured or becomes seriously ill, and he is treated or helped while he is not in a condition to give consent to a contract, he shall be liable to pay for the services of the physician or other person aiding him, unless the service has been rendered out of pure generosity.
Civil Code, Article 2167 — Medical Aid Given in an Emergency. Read the full provision →
Why consent is not what decides this
Article 2167 addresses exactly this situation: when through an accident or other cause a person is injured or becomes seriously ill, and he is treated or helped while he is not in a condition to give consent to a contract, he shall be liable to pay for the services of the physician or other person aiding him, unless the service has been rendered out of pure generosity. Being unconscious or otherwise unable to agree to treatment does not, on its own, exempt you from paying for it. The obligation arises from having received the help, not from having agreed to it beforehand.
The one exception: services given out of pure generosity
The article carves out a real exception, not just a formality: if the person who treated or helped you did so out of pure generosity — meaning they intended it as a gift, with no expectation of payment — you are not liable to pay for that service under this article. Whether a particular episode of help was rendered that way depends on the actual facts and intent behind it, not on how urgent or serious your condition was.
Why the law works this way
This rule fills a gap that ordinary contract law cannot: you cannot consent to a contract while unconscious or incapacitated, yet someone still had to decide to help you, often at real cost to themselves. Article 2167 does not wait for a contract to exist; it imposes the obligation directly from the fact of having been treated or helped in that condition, so that a person's inability to consent does not become a reason for care to go unpaid.
What this means for your actual bill
If you are being billed for emergency treatment you could not consent to, this article does not give you a basis to dispute liability for that reason alone. What can matter is whether any part of what was given to you was genuinely offered as a gift rather than a paid service. Gather the records of what was done and by whom, and if you believe part of it was meant as gratuitous help, raise that specifically with whoever is billing you, or with a lawyer.