Is 'this attitude' mine (GP's)? As far as I'm aware I simply described the legal reality.
The point is that the driver may not 'ditch these fares', and that Uber (et al.) simply bares any difference as the cost of doing business.
They are not allowed, by law, to discriminate between a disabled passenger who 'takes too long', an able-bodied speedy passenger, and an able-bodied passenger who 'takes too long' for unforeseeable reasons, so it is just what it is (the 'forseeable' as the 'unforseeable').
We want a minimum wage so we go after the only person paying someone, the boss, and demand that they pay more. If instead we paid a (temporary) UBI to bring up the compensation it wouldn't all fall on the business owner and we wouldn't have to force them to do it.
We want morbidly obese people to be welcome on airplanes but we forbid the airline from charging them for all the seats they consume.
If we want people to pick up the disabled, and not shirk the task, then we shouldn't stick them with the cost.
We should act like adults and pay (directly) for what we want, what we feel is right - trip subsidies for medical reasons.
The extra cost should be born by society, which is where the requirement comes from. If we think the disabled should ride for the same price we should make that part of medical coverage and pay the driver for the extra time spent.
As is, any sensible driver will ditch these fares with any means possible. More work, less money, and generally bitchier customers. The next time your fare comes up they'll pull over and take a bathroom break rather than responding.
If we want something, we have to pay for it, not try to stick someone else with the bill.