134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10240215)
1. Post-Saikewicz judicial actions clarify the rights of patients and families.
Glantz LH
Medicoleg News; 1978; 6(4):9-11. PubMed ID: 10240215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Who "pulls the plug:" the practical effect of the Saikewicz decision.
Dunn LJ
Medicoleg News; 1978; 6(4):6-8. PubMed ID: 10240214
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Judges at the bedside: the case of Joseph Saikewicz.
Annas GJ
Medicoleg News; 1978; 6(1):10-3. PubMed ID: 10289106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Substitute consent. Reconciling negative treatment and consent to routine medical treatment.
Sappington GM
J Leg Med; 1986 Sep; 7(3):341-55. PubMed ID: 3490528
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Withholding of life-sustaining treatment from the terminal ill, incompetent patient: who decides? Part I.
Suber DG; Tabor WJ
JAMA; 1982 Nov; 248(18):2250-1. PubMed ID: 7131676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The Saikewicz precedent: what's good for an incompetent patient?
Ramsey P
Hastings Cent Rep; 1978 Dec; 8(6):36-42. PubMed ID: 152738
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Reconciling Quinlan and Saikewicz: decision making for the terminally ill incompetent.
Annas GJ
Am J Law Med; 1979; 4(4):367-96. PubMed ID: 507056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Silent decisions: limits of consent and the terminally ill patient.
Brennan TA
Law Med Health Care; 1988; 16(3-4):204-9. PubMed ID: 3205051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Dilemmas of dying.
Liacos PJ
Medicoleg News; 1979; 7(3):4-7, 29. PubMed ID: 10244374
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Decision making in the care of terminally ill incompetent persons: concerns about the role of the courts.
Mariner WK
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1984 Oct; 32(10):739-46. PubMed ID: 6481053
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Medico-legal implications of "orders not to resuscitate.
Tecklenburg N
Cathol Univers Law Rev; 1982; 31(3):515-37. PubMed ID: 11649468
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Rights of the terminally ill patient.
Hodgson J
Ann Health Law; 1996; (5):169-91. PubMed ID: 10164517
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Who speaks for incompetent patients? The case of Joseph Saikewicz.
Carroll PR
Trustee; 1978 Dec; 31(12):19, 21-2, 24. PubMed ID: 10239592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Vox clamantis in deserto: do you really mean what you say in Spring?
Dunn LJ; Ator NE
Medicoleg News; 1981 Feb; 9(1):14-6, 27. PubMed ID: 10317079
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The duty to care--the right to refuse. Changing roles of patients and physicians in end-of-life decision making.
Garwin M
J Leg Med; 1998 Mar; 19(1):99-125. PubMed ID: 9564096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Analysis of the Supreme Court of New Jersey's decision in the Claire Conroy case.
Nevins MA
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1986 Feb; 34(2):140-3. PubMed ID: 3944404
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. In re Donald McCarthy.
Harburg M
Issues Law Med; 1994; 10(2):225-8. PubMed ID: 7960666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Treatment of incompetent terminally ill patients. 1. The American experience.
Thomson CJ
Med J Aust; 1982 Feb; 1(4):188-90. PubMed ID: 7078492
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Quality of life and non-treatment decisions for incompetent patients: a critique of the orthodox approach.
Dresser RS; Robertson JA
Law Med Health Care; 1989; 17(3):234-44. PubMed ID: 2811462
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Termination of medical treatment: a judicial perspective.
Ackerman JW; Pope MC
J Leg Med; 1982 Jun; 3(2):211-43. PubMed ID: 6981677
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
