At most, in earlier eras (e.g., the 1950s), some hospitals may have had policies in place which informally allowed physicians / hospital administrators to "gatekeep" and require spousal approval...
...I find this one claim rather specious.
It's not hospitals, it's the urologist avoiding litigation from the wife who can be a party to the lawsuit if the vasectomy doesn't take. That's the given reason but it's the same result - many urologists will not perform a vasectomy on a married man without the wife's approval.
That is true
A friendly dispute: It sounds more as though you're saying that the urologist would want the wife's release. Your original statement frames it as the doctor requiring her permission, as though the husband were legally incompetent or under his wife's guardianship.
Suggested new statement:
"Some urologists ask married men to document that their wife has been notified or has acknowledged the decision, because if a vasectomy fails (meaning: the wife gets pregnant), the wife could otherwise join a lawsuit. But the husband does not legally need his wife's consent - the requirement is about liability protection, not permission."The fact that some gynecologists might not require the same sort of "liability release" might be due to female sterilization operations being more sure-fire; there is virtually no danger of the operation failing.
Regards,