124 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]
2. Dilemmas of dying.
Liacos PJ
Medicoleg News; 1979; 7(3):4-7, 29. PubMed ID: 10244374
[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]
