No. You are advocating setting a standard of perfection for humans dealing with other humans. Doctors are already responsible for their actions but are not responsible for what insurance policies used to call (and maybe still do) “acts of god”.
Not when the outcome has nothing to do with their actions. A doctor can do everything technically correct and a sterilization procedure can still fail. If the doctor erred, then you might have a case of malpractice. If the risks weren’t presented accurately then you might also have an actionable situation. But if everything was done properly, it not the doctor’s responsibility that biology is imperfect.
No matter how much you wish it were so.
This is among the silliest ideas I’ve heard this week.
Doctors, no matter what they might think, are not gods. Doctors are not legally responsible for preventing the death of their patients. Which makes sense, because no matter what doctors might or might not do every human being on planet Earth is mortal, and will therefore die. It is not possible for doctors to prevent every death or injury. The best they can do is sometimes postpone death.
Your proposal would be like holding the fire department responsible every time someone’s house burned down. The fire department is not responsible for preventing each and every fire. In fact it is worse, since there are lots and lots of buildings on planet Earth that were never burned down, and never will burn down since they have already been demolished by non-fire methods. Or holding the weatherman responsible for raaaai-aaain on your wedding day.
All men are mortal.
You are a man.
Therefore, you are mortal.
Doctors can be held responsible if they don’t uphold a certain standard of care. But if they do uphold that standard of care, and you die anyway, that’s because all men are mortal and doctors are not gods.
This guy wants to make sure that no doctor will ever perform any medical procedure and no man will ever have sex with any woman. The risks would be too great.
What you’re advocating is for no one to enter the medical field again and for the entire industry to collapse.
Do you feel this way strictly about surgery, or would you like to see other areas of life held to the same standard? Can you sue if you got a flu shot and still get the flu? Should chemotherapy manufacturers all be held liable for every cancer death since it was invented? I mean, chemotherapy is used with the goal of curing cancer, and every cancer death is a failure of chemotherapy to achieve that goal.
Should the Lakers fine Kobe for every missed shot? I mean, he took the shot for the express reason of achieving a field goal, and each miss is money lost by the Lakers organization. Should we hold the military responsible for every lost war, every failed objective? They owe us a lot of money then, it seems. What about failed inventors? I mean, every problem they tried to invent a solution for is still costing us money, time and effort today. Think of how much better things would be today if they weren’t such lousy inventors! Surely they owe us.
Try and fail, and you become responsible for everything the problem you tried to fix has caused. It’s almost like you don’t want anybody to try anything, ever. After all, trying is the first step to failure.
One of the possible consequences of sex is pregnancy, no matter how many precautions you take.
Yes, I certainly know that; indeed, the anti-child support choice position of many people here has caused me to try playing Devil’s Advocate in regards to this. 
Look, I understand you don’t want to pay child support. There are plenty of ways to avoid that. Smashing your testicles with a brick is one of those ways.
You seem like a typical aspergery young person who is baffled by the idea that life sometimes presents unfair outcomes. The fact is, we don’t raise our children in common. We expect parents to do it. In the old days you could walk out on your children and let them starve in the gutter. But it hurt our feelings to see children starving to death in the gutter. One way to fix this problem would be to support abandoned children out of public funds. But that would be expensive, and leads to the moral hazard of people having children and abandoning them, knowing that the rest of us would care for those children. Eventually only suckers would care for their own children, when they could get the taxpayers to do it for them. And the well known stinginess of taxpayers would mean children cared for at absolute minimum levels.
So instead of making the rest of us care for your goddam kids, we’ve decided that parents can take care of their own goddam kids at a minimum acceptable level, and if you fall below that level we’ll MAKE you take care of your goddam kids, rather than doing it ourselves.
Sorry if you don’t like this idea, but you’re one person with a pathological fear of becoming a parent. Literally pathological, in your case. And the rest of use outnumber you, so good luck getting us to change our minds on this issue.
The fact is, it’s actually pretty easy to weasel out of paying child support for your goddam kids. People do it all the time. So rather than panicking about the small chance of having to pay child support for 18 years for a kid you didn’t want, spend some time figuring out your escape plan. Get paid in cash. Never tell randoms your real name. Become a drifter, walking from town to town, until you learn to control the raging beast that dwells within you. And so on.
If the OP wants a doctor to snip his nards AND be financially liable if a child happens to be born, I bet there’s a doctor out there who will agree to those terms. Of course, the price tag may rise to $400,000 for the procedure…
With a brick? :eek:
The thing is, though, that just because life and biology is unfair does not necessarily mean that we can’t make it fairer. However, like it or not, but the best way for me to make life and biology fairer would be for me to literally get surgically castrated. Seriously.
Unless these parents exploit safe haven laws, that is. Indeed, as far as I know, a woman can have sex with a man, not tell him that she is pregnant, cut off all contact with him, and then give up their baby using a safe haven law without his knowledge or consent.
How about women simply be more selective about which men they have sex with, though? Radical idea, I know (sarcasm).
Also, parents can already make the taxpayers pay for their children by exploiting safe haven laws.
And you know what message this sends? This sends the message that no non-drastic form of birth control is good enough and that thus I myself must get surgically castrated in order to avoid this outcome. After all, I, unlike many cis-women, certainly don’t have the guaranteed option of abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.
Just stop whining and complaining about it when pro-lifers tell women to “keep their legs closed,” okay?
That would still result in the taxpayers financially supporting these children, though. 
Plus, the law could always catch up to me.
And this is precisely why vasectomies are shitty medical procedures. Seriously. After all, a genuinely low risk of an unplanned pregnancy certainly wouldn’t result in a vasectomy doctor charging that kind of money for such an agreement.
Also, honestly, if I was that concerned about taxpayer money, then I would probably support Chinese-style one-child/two-child laws for poor people. After all, these types of laws might very well result in a lot of taxpayer money being saved. Plus, I certainly consider it to be more acceptable for the taxpayers to pay the child support of a man whose vasectomy failed and whose female sexual partner lied or changed her mind in regards to abortion and/or adoption than it is for the taxpayers to help financially support the “excess” children of poor people who have more children than they can afford to raise. After all, the latter is (at least often) much easier to prevent/avoid than the former is.
In addition to this, in regards to child support, frankly, a good compromise in regards to this might be to let male-bodied people (and possibly female-bodied people as well) have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in the event of sterilization failure, long acting reversible contraception failure, and/or a broken promise in regards to abortion and/or adoption. Indeed, such a compromise might not even cost the taxpayers that much (indeed, financially supporting the “excess” children of poor people might be more expensive for the taxpayers). However, since such a compromise certainly does not appear to be anywhere on the horizon, surgical castration certainly is and remains the only acceptable option for me in regards to this.
The increased cost would be for liability, not for a better surgeon.
Vasectomies very seldom spontaneously reverse. And it’s not due to incompetence by doctors, it’s due to the fact that the human body can repair itself sometimes.
Most spontaneous reversals of vasectomies happen within a year of the procedure. So get yourself snipped, then tested after to make sure the procedure worked, then tested again after a year to confirm that there was no spontaneous reversal. That will work for more than 99 cases out of 100.
Almost all people who have vasectomies are permanently sterilized afterwards. I’ve fucked my wife at least a thousand times after my vasectomy, and she hasn’t gotten pregnant once.
And yet the odds of at least one vasectomy failure are extremely high out of a large enough sample size. Indeed, that one vasectomy failure can just as easily be me as it can be anyone else.
Most, but certainly not all.
And yet it certainly won’t work in all cases.
The key word here is “almost.”
But this liability is almost certainly never going to actualize, though.
Look, if you want a particular service, you’ve got to pay for it. You can’t insist the airline give you a first class seat if you only pay for a non-refundable economy seat.
Sure, but the price for this specific service appears to be extremely disproportionate.