Adam London Circumcision Lawsuit Brief

Adam London Circumcision Lawsuit Brief

"Adam London, a minor, by Trudie London, his Guardian ad Litem, Petitioner, vs. Mark Glasser, an individual, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, a corporation, Permanente Medical Group, a corporation, Real Parties In Interest // On Appeal From the Judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin // Richard W. Morris, Attorney at law."

APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities

Introduction ("DOES A PARENT HAVE THE LEGAL POWER TO CONSENT TO A SURGICAL PROCEDURE WHICH HAS NO MEDICAL PURPOSE?")

Summary

Point I: Constitutional Right Of Safety

Point II: Public Policy of State Of California Is To Protect Children From Harm

Point III: Surgery Without Consent Is Battery

Point IV: Minor Cannot Consent

Point V: Power Of Parent To Consent Is Limited

Point VI: Parents Power To Consent Must Be Limited to Medical Purposes

Point VII: Definition of Medical Treatment

Point VIII: No Medical Treatment Here

Point IX: Facts Recited in Written Instrument Conclusively Presumed True Between Parties

Point X: Superior Court Ruling In Error

Point XI: Further Illustration of Limit of Power to Consent

Point XII: Rules of Law Must be Based Upon Reason Not Upon "Tradition and The Circumcision Mystique"

Point XIII: Further Illustration / Hypothetical Case Number One

Point XIV: Further Illustration / Hypothetical Case Number Two

Conclusion

RESPONDENTS' BRIEF
Table of Contents

STATEMENT OF CASE

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Introduction
2. Facts Surrounding the Circumcision

DISCUSSION

I. PARENTAL AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO CIRCUMCISION DERIVES FROM THE CONSTITUTION, STATUTORY ENACTMENTS REGARDING THE NATION OF "CUSTODY", AND THE COMMON LAW

B. Parental Authority to Consent to Medical Treatment on Behalf of Their Children is Also Embraced Within the Concept of "Custody", Recognized under Common Law and by Civil Code Section 197

C. Parental Authority Extends to Any Medical Treatment, as is Evidenced by Civil Code Section 25.8

II. UNDER THE EVIDENCE OFFERED TO THE TRIAL COURT, CIRCUMCISION IS A RECOGNIZED "MEDICAL TREATMENT"

III. PLAINTIFF'S PARENTS GAVE THEIR FULL AND KNOWING CONSENT TO THE CIRCUMCISION

B. Plaintiff's Parents Expressly Consented to His Circumcision by Their Conduct

C. The Parents' Consent in this Case was an "Informed Consent"

CONCLUSION

APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT DISCUSSION

2. UNDER THE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OFFERED TO THE TRIAL COURT, ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION IS NOT MEDICAL TREATMENT

3. APPELLANT'S PARENTS DID NOT GIVE AN INFORMED CONSENT TO THE CIRCUMCISION

CONCLUSION

*****

Clear half-size photocopy of the original 90 pages. $15 postpaid to U.S. address. Outside U.S. add $5.

Order from:
John A. Erickson
1664 Beach Blvd. #216
Biloxi, MS 39531-5351
qsmd@datasync.com

Return to "Books."

Return to main page.