In fairness to the doctor, from their perspective it is dodgy to prescribe things that a patient requests. They could be sued for malpractice and lose everything if they don't do it "by the book" (that book co-authored by the biopharma-insurance syndicate and the hospital administration) - this is how they are trained and it is usually a strict condition of employment. These people (gp doctors) push pills for a living - nothing more grandiose than that. Glorified drug dealers doing what they are told.

In this case, this doctor is (in theory, if not in practice) doing the prudent and cautious thing in wanting to discuss (with colleagues / lawyers / administrators) the situation before prescribing.

Sadly, this is just a neutered man in a doctors clothes. Even if he concluded, based on his medical opinion/experience, that there was no significant risk in administering the treatment his patient explicitly requested (and could easily do so in writing with assurances of waived liability etc. to satisfy the godless tyrannical profiteering bureaucracy truly responsible for this nightmare) - he could still lose everything if something goes wrong (risk averse/riskless/dickless pussy).

Just thought I'd try and devils advocate the other side.