193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10183665)
1. Living tissue and organ donors and property law: more on Moore.
Dickens BM
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1992; 8():73-93. PubMed ID: 10183665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: patients, property rights, and public policy.
Biagi KG
St Louis Univ Law J; 1991; 35(2):433-62. PubMed ID: 16144099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Beyond Moore: issues of law and policy impacting human cell and genetic research in the age of biotechnology.
Hartman RG
J Leg Med; 1993 Sep; 14(3):463-77. PubMed ID: 7779167
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. "No compensation" or "pro compensation": Moore v. Regents and default rules for human tissue donations.
Korobkin R
J Health Law; 2007; 40(1):1-27. PubMed ID: 17549930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Biotechnology: a challenge for Hippocrates.
Huynen S
Auckl Univ Law Rev; 1991; 6(4):534-51. PubMed ID: 16127862
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Property, progeny, and patents.
Knowles LP
Hastings Cent Rep; 1999; 29(2):38-40. PubMed ID: 10321342
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A disputed spleen.
Brahams D
Lancet; 1988 Nov; 2(8620):1151-2. PubMed ID: 2903372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Moore v. The Regents of the University of California: an ethical debate on informed consent and property rights in a patient's cells.
Prowda JB
J Pat Trademark Off Soc; 1995 Aug; 77(8):611-39. PubMed ID: 11658094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Neither Moore nor the market: alternative models for compensating contributors of human tissue.
Harrison CH
Am J Law Med; 2002; 28(1):77-105. PubMed ID: 12025539
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
California. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4
Wests Calif Report; 1988 Jul; 249():494-540. PubMed ID: 11648571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Proprietary rights in body parts: the relevance of Moore's case in Australia.
Mortimer D
Monash Univ Law Rev; 1993; 19(1):217-25. PubMed ID: 17333577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Bailment and donation of parts of the human body.
Brahams D
New Law J; 1989 Jun; 139(6411):803-4. PubMed ID: 11650943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. An institutional policy on the right to benefit from the commercialization of human biological material.
Prentice ED; Wiltse JC; Sharp JG; Antonson DL
Law Med Health Care; 1990; 18(1-2):162-7. PubMed ID: 2374448
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Second thoughts about U.S. Patent #4,438,032.
Burrows B
Bull Med Ethics; 1997 Jan; No. 124():11-4. PubMed ID: 11655049
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Ruling renews fears of limits on research.
Reinhold R
N Y Times Web; 1988 Jul; ():19. PubMed ID: 11646695
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: expanded disclosure, limited property rights.
Potts J
Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1992; 86(2):453-96. PubMed ID: 11659500
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Controlling conflicts of interest in the doctor-patient relationship: lessons from Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
Healey JM; Dowling KL
Mercer Law Rev; 1991; 42(3):989-1005. PubMed ID: 11651440
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. A question of property rights in the human body.
Marusyk RW; Swain MS
Ottawa Law Rev; 1989; 21(2):351-86. PubMed ID: 16086463
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Biotechnology, patients' rights, and the Moore case.
Howard JJ
Food Drug Cosmet Law J; 1989 Jul; 44(4):331-58. PubMed ID: 11659209
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Patient autonomy and biomedical research: judicial compromise in Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
LoBiondo AR
Albany Law J Sci Technol; 1991; 1():277-305. PubMed ID: 16281328
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
