What do you think about doctors who oppose male and female circumcision? Should they be required to circumcise children for parents who ask, even though they oppose that procedure? What do you think about psychiatrist who oppose repairative therapy? When a patient asks them to provide such therapy, should they be forced to ignore their convictions and provide said therapy? What about OBs who disagree with certain prenatal treatment and procedures? My wife wanted a certain treatment for our youngest, but her OB refused. Should she have consented? What do you think about Indian dermatologists who oppose skin lightening procedures because they feel they continue age old racial stereotypes in Indian society? Should they ignore their conscience and consent?shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I would say there's a difference between circumcision and other operations, since in most cases circumcision is not performed for medical reasons; Similarly for other cosmetic as opposed to medical operations.
It's also debatable that circumcision would be in the best interests of the patient, given it has no clear medical efficacy.
Also, the issue with fiduciaries is more concerned with protecting the beneficiary from the fiduciaries power, not protecting the fiduciary from the wishes of the beneficiary. It's the doctor that has the actual power in the doctor-patient relationship, so the legal obligation is imposed on the doctor to use that power appropriately.
Keep in mind also, "best interests of the patient" aren't necessarily what the patient says they want. That being said, fiduciaries can get out of harm's way by showing their principal has given informed consent.
So, for example, a trustee of someone's inheritance might be told "I want you to invest in my friend's company, so do it!". The trustee, in their experience and wisdom, knows the friend's company is high risk, low reward; the trustee would have to explain clearly and in detail why investing the inheritance in the friend's company is likely to cause the inheritance to lose value, etc., have the beneficiary sign a document certifying they understand that and they want to do it anyway, then the fiduciary can do it and not breach their onerous duties.
For any non-fiduciary positions, Government protection is appropriate when assessed on a case-by-case basis, I think. Nominally, the two parties are on equal terms (the employee doesn't have to take the job if they don't want to do the work, the employer doesn't have to offer the job if the employee can't perform it) so the question should be where the burden is minimised.
In the example with the dog, say, if it's possible to have another employee deal with the dog without causing burden to either the business or the customer, and the incidence of the burden is rare and slight, then the employer shouldn't be able to use it as an excuse to get rid of the employee. Same would go for a butcher with one employee who couldn't handle pork for religious reasons.
