Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to accept transfer of Mrs. West and the undisputed evidence shows,that Dr. Huxol never refused to accept transfer of Mrs. West. 1. No Prívate Cause of Action under EMTALA against Individuals EMTALA provides a private cause of action directly- against participating hospitals for violation of the duties created -by the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A) (authorizing private suits “against the participating hospital”). However, courts, including the .Sixth Circuit, have held that EMTALA does not provide a plaintiff with a private cause of action against a physician. Moses v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc., 561 F.3d 573, 587 (6th Cir.2009) (“EMTALA does not authorize a private right of action against individuals.”); see Eberhardt v. City of L.A., 62 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (9th Cir.1995) ; King v. Ahrens, 16 F.3d 265, 271 (8th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that emtala does pot give patients a private cause of action against their physicians
B. holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities
C. holding that emtala does not allow private suits against physicians
D. holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations
E. holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.