223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10284752)
1. Damage actions for nonconsensual life-sustaining medical treatment.
Dooling RP
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1987 Nov; 9(5):7-30. PubMed ID: 10284752
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Refusing life-sustaining medical treatment.
Saunders EK
Mo Med; 1990 Sep; 87(9):665-7. PubMed ID: 2215468
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Foregoing life-sustaining treatment: what are the legal limits in an aging society?
Rothenberg KH
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1991 Jan; (143):7-34. PubMed ID: 10108913
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Developments in foregoing life-sustaining treatment.
Scofield GR
Healthspan; 1989 Mar; 6(3):3-7. PubMed ID: 10292566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Incompetent residents and consent: issues and concerns.
Lutz RM
Provider; 1989 Dec; 15(12):20-1. PubMed ID: 10296601
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Right-to-die issues in Minnesota.
Klein JE
Minn Med; 1991 Apr; 74(4):33-6. PubMed ID: 1875875
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Medical treatment for older people and people with disabilities: 1986 developments. National Legal Center Staff.
Issues Law Med; 1987 Jan; 2(4):255-76. PubMed ID: 2951349
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Aspects of the dilemma: when and how should treatment be withheld or withdrawn?
Frelick RW
Del Med J; 1989 Jun; 61(6):305-7. PubMed ID: 2753191
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Right-to-die damage actions: developments in the law.
Miller DH
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1990 Jul; (137):7-38. PubMed ID: 10105837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Liability for improper maintenance of life support: balancing patient and physicians autonomy.
Addlestone SI
Spec Law Dig Health Care Law; 1994 Nov; (189):9-34. PubMed ID: 10144585
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Listening to patients: a clear sign for hospitals. Interview by Matthew D. Pavelich.
Lapointe A
Leadersh Health Serv; 1992; 1(4):10-1, 17. PubMed ID: 10123131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The refusal of life-saving medical treatment vs. the state's interest in the preservation of life: a clarification of the interests at stake.
Davis SM
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1981 Jul; 3(5):5-36. PubMed ID: 10295112
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The end of childhood.
Lalani S
Can Doct; 1986 Oct; 52(10):17-8. PubMed ID: 10278827
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The choice to refuse to withhold medical treatment: the emerging technology and medical-ethical consensus.
Clarke AM
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1981 May; 3(3):5-51. PubMed ID: 10295103
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Is durable power working in Ohio?
Ohio Med; 1991 Jul; 87(7):325-6. PubMed ID: 1870830
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Refusing life-sustaining technology: the McConnell case.
Healey JM
Conn Med; 1989 Apr; 53(4):245. PubMed ID: 2743765
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Deciding for others. Issues of consent.
McThenia AW
Second Opin; 1987; (5):76-99. PubMed ID: 10284749
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Artificial feeding and patients' rights: recent developments and recommendations.
Cohen EN; Cohen MM
Med Staff Couns; 1988; 2(3):23-35. PubMed ID: 10312561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Supreme Court to examine withdrawal of nutrition and hydration.
Costa L
Contemp Longterm Care; 1990 Jan; 13(1):61-2. PubMed ID: 10113080
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Keep alive--or allow to die?
Mooring PK
MD; 1980 May; 24(5):17, 21. PubMed ID: 10246357
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
