Also found in the linked article:
For example, the suit says, a doctor performing mastectomies to treat breast cancer would be barred from declining to perform the same surgery for sex reassignment.
So even if you are a physician who isn’t in the basis of doing sexual reassignment surgeries, you could conceivably be roped into doing one (or, more likely, threatened with being forced to do one and then having to pay the price) if you perform other services which could, conceivably, be related.
Physicians should have the right to limit to the scope of their conscience and they should have the right to conscientious objection. If physician A isn’t willing to do mastectomies for sex reassignment purposes, but physician B is, then physician A is free to do more mastectomies for cancer related purposes while physicians B can do more mastectomies for sex reassignment purposes. Ultimately everyone wins.
If physician B isn’t available then that’s an opportunity for locum physicians to step in, or allied group to fund or create transportation or arrangements for individuals to find a physician B. In a location rural enough where no physician B exists, its likely there are many other reasons rather than physician A’s reluctance that an elective surgery isn’t on the docket. Speaking as someone in an under serviced area, we have enough issues pumping out the absolutely essential and time critical surgeries.
But, if the situation in the US is anything like our recent shake-up about physician conscience rights in Canada, I suspect ensuring access to these types of surgeries is only secondary to the true purpose. It’s about ensuring that everyone in the medical community gets with the program. Either you will affirm, support, and actively assist a patient’s quest to transition or you don’t belong in medicine.