it is ethically bizarre that doctors can have their license suspended for prescribing plausibly-harmful drugs, but suspensions for *not* prescribing the appropriate drugs are rare.

which is to say: a doctor overprescribing desoxyn (google this) would quickly have their license revoked, while refusing to give vaccinations or other relevant treatments might cause an equal or greater amount of harm and to my knowledge isn't considered grounds for suspension. there is in other words a bias against action relative to a bias against inaction.

this is the only way I've been able to make sense of how anti-vaccine doctors are still allowed to practice, at any rate.