Vasectomy Discrimination?

[Nick101]

A doctor in CA advertises that he performs vasectomies, a very safe and common elective procedure. Say several healthy, single, childless, young men (<30) go to see the doctor asking for a vasectomy procedure. Say the doctor refuses to perform a vasectomy on all of these men. The doctor says his reason for denial, in each and every case, is that they are " too young." The doctor says he is afraid that the young men might change their minds about fathering thier own children and regret the procedure later in life. Would this be a case of class discrimination? The class being young childless men.

 

[doucar]

It would be discrimination, but like most discrimination, perfectly legal, since no where in the law are young childless men a protected class.

 

[stealth2]

A doctor in CA advertises that he performs vasectomies, a very safe and common elective procedure. Say several healthy, single, childless, young men (<30) go to see the doctor asking for a vasectomy procedure. Say the doctor refuses to perform a vasectomy on all of these men. The doctor says his reason for denial, in each and every case, is that they are " too young." The doctor says he is afraid that the young men might change their minds about fathering thier own children and regret the procedure later in life. Would this be a case of class discrimination? The class being young childless men.

LOL Women haven't been able to get their tubes tied for exactly that reason.

 

[LdiJ]

LOL Women haven't been able to get their tubes tied for exactly that reason.

And decades before that couldn't get birth control, of any kind, if they were married.

 

[cbg]

I could make the case that since men and women are being treated the same, it's not discrimination at all.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Would this be a case of class discrimination? The class being young childless men.

Not a case of illegal discrimination. Under federal law, a place of public accommodation is prohibited from discriminating against customers on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and disability. A lot of people assume that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex and age in public accommodations because employers are prohibited from discriminating based on those characteristics, but the federal law on discrimination in public accommodations is much more limited than in employment. As the discrimination involved here is not based on race, color, national origin, religion, or disability there is clearly no illegal discrimination against the men here.

Under California law, it is illegal for a business to discriminate on the basis of the following:

• Race, color
• Ancestry, national origin
• Religion
• Primary language
• Citizenship, immigration status
• Disability, mental or physical
• Sex, gender (including pregnancy)
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity, gender expression
• Medical condition
• Genetic information
• Marital status

As you can see, again age is not a covered characteristic as it is in employment. California does prohibit discrimination by places of public accommodation on the basis of sex, but with sex discrimination there are some differences in treatment of the sexes that are permitted because men and women do differ biologically and to account for certain long standing social norms (like men and women having different locker rooms, restrooms, etc). Vasectomies are a procedure that only men can get due to their biology, so it is impossible for the doctor to, say, give young women a vasectomy but not young men. Therefore, you are not going to get a good case here for discrimination on the basis of sex.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I could make the case that since men and women are being treated the same, it's not discrimination at all.

There is still age discrimination — young men are denied the procedure whereas older men are not. But age discrimination by businesses in California is not illegal under either federal or state law.

 

[westside]

Do you really want to force someone to perform that particular procedure against their will?

 

[NeilTheCop]

The first line of the Hippocratic oath:
"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant.
His judgement was that for certain people this elective surgery was not a good idea.