Research Paper on:
Appellate Brief for Case Study (Wrongful Birth)

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Karen Ross, plaintiff v. Dean M. Demarco, M.D. & Associates of L.A. Obstetrics & Gynecology, defendants ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Did the local district court violate the  plaintiffs rights by ruling that California does not recognize the wrongful life tort? 2. Is the physician negligent in not ordering appropriate tests such as amniocentesis or chronic villus  sampling? STATEMENT OF THE CASE The plaintiff is seeking compensation as she had given birth to a Down Syndrome child, a birth outcome that is medically preventable. The  plaintiff, Karen Ross, visited Dr. Dean Demarco on or about October 1, 2002 when her pregnancy was diagnosed. At the time, the plaintiff was 38 years old. Although she expressed  concern because the pregnancy was unplanned, and that she had not been well and had on one occasion drank excessively, the physician told her not to worry. Throughout the pregnancy  in fact, the doctor advised her that the baby would be just fine. From the time of the first prenatal visit, Karen expressed concern to Dr. Demarco about the  baby. She had heard that because of her advanced age, there could be complications. Although she was not well versed in prenatal matters and risks, she wanted to take every  precaution to make sure that the baby would be alright. She conveyed her concerns to the doctor at each visit. Dr. Demarco assured her that if she took her prenatal  vitamins and kept her monthly appointments, the baby would be fine. There had been no amniocentesis done nor were any ultrasound exams ordered. The babys heartbeat was heard many times  during the course of various prenatal visits. There did not seem to be any symptoms out of the ordinary nor did the plaintiff request any specific tests. However, she reiterated