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.
2. Nat Hentoff on the babies Doe. McFadden JP; Hentoff N Hum Life Rev; 1984; 10(2):73-104. PubMed ID: 11651744 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Withholding treatment from defective newborns: who decides and on what criteria? Longino PH Univ Kans Law Rev; 1983; 31(3):377-407. PubMed ID: 11658479 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Decisionmaking for the incompetent terminally ill patient: a compromise in a solution eliminates a compromise of patients' rights. Knezevich CA Indiana Law J; 1982; 57(2):325-48. PubMed ID: 11649706 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Is there a right to die? Grad FP Columbia J Law Soc Probl; 1976; 12(4):489-529. PubMed ID: 11663026 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. "Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment": a critique. Williams JR Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can; 1984 Nov; 17(7):589-91. PubMed ID: 11651758 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Withholding life-prolonging medical treatment from the institutionalized person--who decides? Corbett KA; Raciti RM New Engl J Prison Law; 1976; 3(1):47-83. PubMed ID: 11664738 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Quinlan, privacy, and the handling of incompetent dying patients. Cantor NL Rutgers Law Rev; 1977; 30(2):243-266. PubMed ID: 11661461 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Withholding treatment from defective newborns: substituted judgment, informed consent, and the Quinlan decision. Sargeant KJ Gonzaga Law Rev; 1978; 13(3):781-811. PubMed ID: 11664980 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Stopping treatment on grounds of futility: a role for institutional policy. Stell LK St Louis Univ Public Law Rev; 1992; 11(2):481-97. PubMed ID: 11652704 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Someone make up my mind: the troubling right to die issues presented by incompetent patients with no prior expression of a treatment preference. Richard SM Notre Dame Law Rev; 1989; 64(3):394-421. PubMed ID: 11659243 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Surrogate decision making for mentally incapacitated adults. Nelson LJ; Golenski JD Clin Ethics Rep; 1987 Feb-Mar-Apr; 1(2 3 & 4):1-28. PubMed ID: 11650108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Medical treatment of defective newborns: an answer to the "Baby Doe" dilemma. Shapiro RS Harvard J Legis; 1983; 20(1):137-52. PubMed ID: 11651781 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. A patient's last rights: termination of medical care--an analysis of New York's In re Storar. Day K Albany Law Rev; 1982; 46(4):1380-413. PubMed ID: 11658533 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Life and death decisions in the nursery: standards and procedures for withholding lifesaving treatment from infants. Smith SR NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1982; 27(4):1125-86. PubMed ID: 11651775 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Refusal of life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill incompetent patients: court orders and an alternative. Rubin BL Columbia J Law Soc Probl; 1985; 19(1):19-68. PubMed ID: 11658755 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The Quinlan case hinged on 'privacy'. Karen Ann could not be denied the right to refuse treatment, court held. Med World News; 1976 May; 17(10):43-4. PubMed ID: 11664623 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]