These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10111987)
1. The rights of pregnant patients: Carder case brings bold policy initiatives. Thornton TE; Paltrow L Healthspan; 1991 May; 8(5):10-6. PubMed ID: 10111987 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Hospital affirms rights of pregnant patients in landmark case; new policy could be model for other hospitals. Hosp Patient Relat Rep; 1991 Jan; 6(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 10112075 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Forced cesarean case leads to policy on pregnancy rights. Phillips DF Trustee; 1991 Apr; 44(4):14. PubMed ID: 10183469 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Lives at stake. How to respond to a woman's refusal of cesarean surgery when she risks losing her child or her life. Tauer CA Health Prog; 1992 Sep; 73(7):18-27. PubMed ID: 10120198 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mother's rights prevail: In re A.C. and the status of forced obstetrical intervention in the District of Columbia. Neale H J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Jul; 23(7):208-13. PubMed ID: 10105493 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Fetal versus maternal rights: who is the patient? Goldman EB Mich Hosp; 1983 Apr; 19(4):23-5. PubMed ID: 10259175 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The emergence of maternal-fetal conflict policies. Neumann PG; Valladares L Health Care Law Newsl; 1991 Dec; 6(12):3-7. PubMed ID: 10183596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Foreclosing the use of force: A.C. reversed. Annas GJ Hastings Cent Rep; 1990; 20(4):27-9. PubMed ID: 2211083 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Court-ordered cesarean sections: an example of the dangers of judicial involvement in medical decision making. Stanyer BT Gonzaga Law Rev; 1992-1993; 28(1):121-40. PubMed ID: 11654037 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Physicians and patients' legal rights, Part II: Rushing to judgment in terminal care? A Geriatrics panel discussion. Geriatrics; 1989 Oct; 44(10):58-60, 71-2, 74. PubMed ID: 2792774 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. In re A.C. reversed: judicial recognition of the rights of pregnant women. Obade CC J Clin Ethics; 1990; 1(3):251. PubMed ID: 2132021 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Rhetoric and reality: the limitations of patient self-determination in contemporary English law. Munby J J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1998; 14(2):315-34. PubMed ID: 9693483 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. But she's not an "inanimate container...". Mishkin B Hastings Cent Rep; 1988; 18(3):40-2. PubMed ID: 3397279 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Patient autonomy and physician responsibility]. Leist A Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena); 1994 Oct; 88(10):733-42. PubMed ID: 7825353 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Compulsory Caesarean sections: an English perspective. Francis R J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1998; 14(2):365-89. PubMed ID: 9693485 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]