One weird thing I see (as a scientist myself) commonly in this debate is the rough idea that to intervene or to not intervene are two sides of a balanced coin, and the decision is solely the doctor’s; this naturally results in the idea that, if a doctor opposes it, then she/he is a prejudiced bigot who is personally intent on harming the person by keeping her from fulfilling some predestined fate. However, in the scientific method, the onus of evidence is always on the intervention side. Even if you happened to discover an amazing drug to cure cancer, with little to no apparent side effects, it would take years to prove that it actually works and is not harmful. Why is all this being thrown away? If a doctor stops you from messing with your body without good evidence it’s because well that’s how science should work.