We probably agree on far too many things for this disagreement to be taken as a bellweather token of the compatability concerning our overall outlook on things.
Like you, I don’t think a man should have a vasectomy without agreement from his spouse, but limiting his ability to have one on the signed permission of his wife is ridiculous. Once again I must remind you that no man will ever get sign-off rights when a viable life exists and the female desires an abortion.
I also note the general default position when it comes to the custody of children upon divorce. Unless the guy is financially ably to spend tens of thousands of dollars, he has very little chance of shared custody.
I think it is also instructional to take note that I as a husband can’t even have access to information on credit accounts my wife may have, even though if something happens to her, I will immediately become responsible for paying off the debt.
I see these as glaring inequities in the rights of men, even though the last one probably does go both ways. It’s still an untenable situation.
What bugs me most is the idea of doing one wrong thing as a protest of another arguably wrong thing.
It sounds like the protocol of that particular physician’s practice was probably put in place (peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers too) in order to satisfy the doctor that the wife’s assent isn’t just a whim. That this is nothing something forced upon his practice by the government. I say fine for the physician for being so ethical about it, and this does not stop other physicians from having looser policies. You don’t know what this physician thinks about spousal rights. It might be that if he were a gynecologist he’d also want the consent of a husband of a married woman in order to tie her tubes if it was not an emergency.