More opinions don't make treatment decisions any easier but in my case I believe it's necessary. I don't presume to advise what is right for someone else in different circumstances.
I'm 72. If I were younger, at higher risk, and had an aggressive case of prostate cancer then I would certainly feel pressure to "get on with it" as you say. Getting second opinions doesn't indicate a lack of trust. It's simply an acknowledgement that diagnostic tools and the personnel who use them aren't perfect. Dr. Mark Scholtz, founder of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute and double board certified medical oncologist has discussed the importance of second opinions and, more importantly, finding medical professionals who are experienced in interpreting prostate cancer biopsies and scans before seeking treatment.

I had three different Gleason scores on the same biopsy slides in one week from two pathologists (one of those pathologists downgraded his score). If that isn't cause for a few questions then I don't know what would be.
If my biopsy results from J. Hopkins are correct (Gleason 3+3) then treatment would not be recommended. In most cases, the biopsy is the most important diagnostic tool that we have. In my case, if the initial interpretation of my MRI is correct then the the results would be "discordant" to use the word of my urologist) with the interpretation of biopsy from Johns Hopkins.
In any event, my urologist indicated that I had a couple of months to think through my options and that's exactly what I'm doing.