Difference between revisions of "London v. Glasser et al."
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Install inline link.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''' is a lawsuit that was filed in the [https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov/ Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin], California in the 1980s by Trulie London on behalf of her minor son, Adam London, against defendants [https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-mark-glasser-xtvxp Mark Glasser], an individual, [https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/ Kaiser Foundation Hospital], a corporation, and [https://permanente.org/the-permanente-medical-group-inc/ Permanente Medical Group] regarding [[informed consent]] for the [[circumcision]] of infant Adam London. The plaintiff was represented by attorney Richard W. Morris of San Diego, California.<ref name="morris1989">{{REFjournal | + | '''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''' is a lawsuit that was filed in the [https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov/ Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin], California in the 1980s by Trulie London on behalf of her minor son, Adam London, against defendants [https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-mark-glasser-xtvxp Mark Glasser], an individual, [https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/ Kaiser Foundation Hospital], a corporation, and [https://permanente.org/the-permanente-medical-group-inc/ Permanente Medical Group] regarding [[informed consent]] for the [[circumcision]] of infant Adam London. This lawsuit also is known as '''The Adam London Case''' and the '''The First Circumcision Case'''. The plaintiff was represented by attorney Richard W. Morris of San Diego, California.<ref name="morris1989">{{REFjournal |
|last=Morris | |last=Morris | ||
|init=RW | |init=RW | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
A petition for review was filed with the [https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/ California Supreme Court], however it was denied.<ref name="morris1989" /> | A petition for review was filed with the [https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/ California Supreme Court], however it was denied.<ref name="morris1989" /> | ||
| − | Although federal issues were involved that would justify an appeal to [https://www.supremecourt.gov/ United States Supreme Court], financial constraints prevented further appeal.<ref name="morris1989" /> | + | Although federal issues were involved that would justify an appeal to the [https://www.supremecourt.gov/ United States Supreme Court], financial constraints prevented further appeal.<ref name="morris1989" /> |
== Comment by Intactiwiki == | == Comment by Intactiwiki == | ||
Many observers believe this case was wrongly decided. It may be that this case from four decades ago was ahead of its time and would fare better if presented today. | Many observers believe this case was wrongly decided. It may be that this case from four decades ago was ahead of its time and would fare better if presented today. | ||
| + | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
| + | * [[Circumcision legal commentary]] | ||
| + | * [[United States of America]] | ||
{{LINKS}} | {{LINKS}} | ||
* {{REFweb | * {{REFweb | ||
| Line 47: | Line 50: | ||
| + | [[Category:'... v. ...']] | ||
[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]] | [[Category:Litigation over circumcision]] | ||
[[Category:USA]] | [[Category:USA]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:55, 30 April 2024
London v. Glasser et al. is a lawsuit that was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin, California in the 1980s by Trulie London on behalf of her minor son, Adam London, against defendants Mark Glasser, an individual, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, a corporation, and Permanente Medical Group regarding informed consent for the circumcision of infant Adam London. This lawsuit also is known as The Adam London Case and the The First Circumcision Case. The plaintiff was represented by attorney Richard W. Morris of San Diego, California.[1]
The question presented was:
Does a parent have the legal power to consent to a surgical procedure which has no medical purpose?
The trial court ruled against the plaintiff and an appeal was filed with the California Court of Appeals,[2] however, the appeal also was not successful.[1]
A petition for review was filed with the California Supreme Court, however it was denied.[1]
Although federal issues were involved that would justify an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, financial constraints prevented further appeal.[1]
Comment by Intactiwiki
Many observers believe this case was wrongly decided. It may be that this case from four decades ago was ahead of its time and would fare better if presented today.
See also
External links
Hill G (2013). Circumcision: Legal Issues
, Circumcision Reference Library. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
References
- ↑ a b c d
Morris RW. The First Circumcision Case 
. The Truth Seeker. July 1989; : 47-50. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
- ↑
Adam London Circumcision Lawsuit Brief
. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
