Captain reported refusing the same aircraft twice over safety concerns regarding an MEL for the Forward Flight Attendant's Handset Inoperative.

Narrative

This report covers two different flights. XXXX on the Day 0 from ZZZ1 to ZZZ2; and XXX on the Day 1; from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Aircraft X was involved on both flights. I was walking on to Aircraft Y to fly ZZZ1 to ZZZ2 (Day 0) when I was told there was an aircraft swap and new aircraft was Aircraft X. It was scheduled to fly to ZZZ3 and that Captain had refused it. The refusal was based on MEL XX-XX-X-X for FA (Flight Attendant) handset inoperative. After walking on to Aircraft X; I discovered the alternative comm procedures involved rear aircraft comm only. After discussing this with the Lead FA; I refused the aircraft and asked for another handset; or to swap the front and rear handset. Maintenance decided to do neither and gave us a 3rd aircraft. During my discussion with dispatch I was told Flight Did Not Operate had been entered in the logbook. Two days later I was in ZZZ flying XXXX to ZZZ1. I pulled the paperwork in the hotel prior to getting on the van and noticed same nose number; Aircraft X; same deferral. After another conversation w/ Dispatch and Maintenance; I refused the aircraft as it was the only way to get rear and forward handsets swapped. It took Contract Maintenance 4 minutes to swap rear and forward handsets. However; it took Contract Maintenance 3 hours and 35 minutes to get to the aircraft after my initial refusal; as no one answered the phone until XA50 in ZZZ. During the delay I noticed that the original I had requested from Dispatch 2 days prior was not in the aircraft logbook. I then attempted to enter the code in the aircraft and could not enter it. Has something changed in Flight Did Not Operate procedures? If the field was populated it generated one thing; if field left blank another. Until now I have not been in an aircraft and inserted Flight Did Not Operate; as I have always been in ops and assumed Dispatch did what they said they did as in this case.Several issues come to mind. How does one enter Flight Did Not Operate? This is not taught anywhere or demonstrated in the syllabus. 2. Maintenance in the 2 phone conversations I had clearly did not agree with my refusal; and said as much. However; the briefing card I carry on my lanyard and which I use prior to and after every flight has the word COMMUNICATION in the center for a reason - and it is something that the training department and LCA emphasize repeatedly. I submit that the communication between the Captain and the forward FA is extremely important in some non-normal situations; medical situations and threat level issues. While I do understand the Maintenance viewpoint (and that of ZZZ) emphasized to me that the aircraft will still fly without a handset; I believe that in order to do the job correctly the Captain and the Purser need to be able to talk real time. Additionally; the Purser in question in ZZZ had 5 weeks of flying on the line. Therefore I would also submit that the Forward FA handset should not be deferred. If you need an NTSB report to emphasize the importance of Pilot and FA communication; then I would rec that the NTSB report from OAL high speed abort; engine failure be given to the Maintenance Controllers and ZZZ Operations to more clearly reveal some of the threats we brief and prepare for; and why communication is important.