There are plenty of avenues to overrule someone's medical decision. You could require vaccinations for school or even get a court order to overrule a clearly bad decision. None of those are "you made a bad argument so your kids are now subject to my decision-making process instead of yours from now on."
It's not a question of accommodation; it's about accessibility. The anti-vaxxers offered better UX for many who felt shut out from scientific knowledge.
The fault does technically lie with the common man in the sense that he behaves the way he does. But we KNOW that he behaves a certain way, and further we have the knowledge necessary to mitigate the effects of those deleterious behaviors and grant the people knowledge despite them. And yet many in the scientific community still refuse to take those psychological lessons to heart, preferring to blame it on "the willful ignorance of the masses".
When you continually run up against failure, blaming the object of failure is not a path towards solving the problem.
Fully committing to this UX analogy would mean for the doctor to pretend that his medicine comes from a religious framework, simply because it's more user-friendly.
It's good to know that, yet again the fault does not lie with the common man. It is always someone else's fault.