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.
124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10249748)
1. NY court issues 'right-to-die' guidelines. Fama AJ Hosp Med Staff; 1981 Jan; 10(1):2-9. PubMed ID: 10249748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. New York Court outlines procedures for ending life support. Schwartz R Health Law Vigil; 1980 May; 3(9):6-7. PubMed ID: 10247626 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The constitutional dimensions of the right to refuse medically assisted nutrition and hydration: an analysis of Cruzan. Karbal W J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Aug; 23(8):241-8, 256. PubMed ID: 10113286 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Washington Supreme Court decides case re: removal of life support systems. Ahern ML Health Law Vigil; 1985 Jan; 8(2):11-2. PubMed ID: 10269741 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. New York Court of Appeals reviews Eichner and companion termination of treatment case. Schwartz RL Health Law Vigil; 1981 Apr; 4(8):6-7. PubMed ID: 10250672 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The Quinlan case: death decision by committee. Annas GJ New Physician; 1979 Feb; 28(2):53-4, 56. PubMed ID: 10240660 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. In the shadow of Karen Quinlan. Bennett SA Trial; 1976 Sep; 12(9):36-41. PubMed ID: 11664653 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. When vitalism is dead wrong: the discrimination against and torture of incompetent patients by compulsory life-sustaining treatment. Ouellette AR Indiana Law J; 2004; 79(1):1-55. PubMed ID: 16189901 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Live or let die; who decides an incompetent's fate? In re Storar and In re Eichner. Bates KW Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1982; 1982(2):387-400. PubMed ID: 11655681 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The right to die: medico-legal implications of In re Quinlan. Hirsh HL; Donovan RE Rutgers Law Rev; 1977; 30(2):267-303. PubMed ID: 11661462 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. New Jersey's 'right-to-die' cases: a view from the ring. Nevins M Am Coll Physicians Obs; 1986 Mar; 6(3):13-6. PubMed ID: 10311536 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment: national trend and recent changes in Maryland law. Goldmeier KE MD Law Rev; 1994; 53(4):1306-43. PubMed ID: 12599354 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 'Right-to-die' theory upheld in New Jersey. Rust M Am Med News; 1985 Feb; 28(5):1, 23. PubMed ID: 11653617 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Decisionmaking in authorizing and withholding life sustaining medical treatment: from Quinlan to Cruzan. Keilitz I; Bilzor JC; Hafemeister TL; Brown V; Dudyshyn D Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1989; 13(5):482-93. PubMed ID: 11654759 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Substituted judgment in medical decision making for incompetent persons: In re Storar. Williams SE Wis L Rev; 1982; 1982(6):1173-98. PubMed ID: 11651834 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The state's interest in the preservation of life: from Quinlan to Cruzan. Peters PG Ohio State Law J; 1989; 50(4):891-977. PubMed ID: 16044607 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The right to die versus the right to live--who decides? The long and wandering road to a legislative solution. Mazzeo KE Albany Law Rev; 2002-2003; 66(1):263-87. PubMed ID: 12484391 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Confusion in right to die ideology: impact of ethical decision making for treatment of an incompetent client. Harner SR Georget J Leg Ethics; 1991; 4(4):869-98. PubMed ID: 12186076 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]