Let's take a hypothetical case where a person develops a debilitating and incurable disease. Left untreated, the patient will die. Medical intervention may prolong life and possibly ease suffering temporarily but the patient will eventually die. Is state-mandated medical intervention a violation of the person's freedom?
If someone has a sound mind and they do not want treatment, it would be a violation of their freedom to force treatment upon them.
What about the intervention of other parties who demand that the person be kept alive?
If the patient does not wish such treatment, that as well would violate his or her freedom.
Is it really "freedom" when the full force of government is used to keep a dying person's lungs working when his own body has shut down?
Depends on the will of the patient. Freedom is doing what the patient wants. Forcing something unwanted onto a patient would violate their freedom.
Is it really "freedom" to compel the public to fund treatments which everyone understands are merely futile attempts which prolong the patient's agony when the patient's own body can no longer sustain itself?
Yes. People should be allowed to go down fighting if that is what they choose.
I'm talking about people with terminal illnesses here, not severely afflicted patients who are treated with commonly recognized and long-tested procedures which are actually effective at curing a particular disease or condition.