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.
119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10289106)
1. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. The incompetent's right to die: the case of Joseph Saikewicz. Annas GJ Hastings Cent Rep; 1978 Feb; 8(1):21-3. PubMed ID: 624618 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The case of Joseph Saikewicz. Annas GJ New Physician; 1979 Mar; 28(3):45-46+. PubMed ID: 11664987 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Constitutional law--right of privacy--qualified right to refuse medical treatment may be asserted for incompetent under doctrine of substituted judgment. Davis PK Emory Law J; 1978; 27(2):425-60. PubMed ID: 11665011 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Medical decisionmaking for incompetent persons: the Massachusetts substituted judgment model. Dunphy SM; Cross JH West New Engl Law Rev; 1987; 9(1):153-67. PubMed ID: 11649910 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Who shall live, who shall die. Who decides? Hirsh HL; Cuneo MK Med Law; 1986; 5(2):111-50. PubMed ID: 3713456 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The Saikewicz decision and patient autonomy. Lee DE Linacre Q; 1980 Feb; 47(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 11663077 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. In re Storar: the right to die and incompetent patients. Colabrese CA Univ Pittsbg Law Rev; 1982; 43(4):1087-107. PubMed ID: 11658613 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Court responses to withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and fluids. Paris JJ; Reardon FE JAMA; 1985 Apr; 253(15):2243-5. PubMed ID: 3919194 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. The Saikewicz decision: a medical viewpoint. Relman AS Am J Law Med; 1978; 4(3):233-42. PubMed ID: 736045 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The due process of dying. Flick MR Calif Law Rev; 1991 Jul; 79(4):1161-7. PubMed ID: 11659478 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]