233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11644157)
21. What ever happened to Baby Jane...Doe?
Jolly CM
West State Univ Law Rev; 1987; 14(2):543-9. PubMed ID: 11651891
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. 'Baby Doe' may be undone.
Caplan AL
N Y Times Web; 1985 Feb; ():23. PubMed ID: 11646288
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Amendments to Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Public Law 98-457.
United States
US Statut Large; 1984; 98(Title I Sections 101a-312a):. PubMed ID: 11686171
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Disabled newborns and the federal child abuse amendments: tenuous protection.
Smith SR
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):765-825. PubMed ID: 11655856
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Withdrawal of life-support in the newborn: whose baby is it?
Clark FI
Southwest Univ Law Rev; 1993; 23(1):1-46. PubMed ID: 11659817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Lawsuit challenges 'Baby Doe' regulation.
Am Med News; 1984 Mar 23-30; 27(12):1, 7. PubMed ID: 11646353
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Forgoing treatment of critically ill newborns and the legal legacy of Baby Doe.
Nelson LJ
Clin Ethics Rep; 1992; 6(2):1-6. PubMed ID: 11652072
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. "New" rights for handicapped newborns: Baby Doe and beyond.
Phillips CA
Calif West Law Rev; 1985; 22(1):127-58. PubMed ID: 11658804
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. 'Baby Doe': it's not a 'medical' question.
Arkes H
Washington Post; 1983 Apr; ():D7. PubMed ID: 11646131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Baby Doe's legacy.
Carroll JB; Andrusko D
America (NY); 1985 Jun; 152(21):450-3. PubMed ID: 11658654
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Baby Doe and local option.
Hentoff N
Washington Post; 1984 Jun; ():A19. PubMed ID: 11646290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Legal perspectives on institutional ethics committees.
Capron AM
J Coll Univ Law; 1985; 11(4):417-31. PubMed ID: 11651865
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Balancing wishes with wisdom: sustaining infant life.
Wakefield-Fisher M
Nurs Health Care; 1987 Nov; 8(9):517-20. PubMed ID: 11644099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Treatment dilemmas for imperiled newborns: why quality of life counts.
Rhoden NK
South Calif Law Rev; 1985 Sep; 58(6):1283-347. PubMed ID: 11660412
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. A question of "equal justice under law.
Erlenborn JN
Congr Rec (Dly Ed); 1982 May; 128(66):E2489-90. PubMed ID: 11651737
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Ethics committee guidelines issued.
Krieger L
Am Med News; 1984 May; 27(18):1, 34. PubMed ID: 11646386
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. United States: treatment of severely handicapped infants.
Lancet; 1983 Oct; 2(8356):960-1. PubMed ID: 11644271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Infant care review committees: an effective approach to the Baby Doe dilemma?
Shapiro RS; Barthel R
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):827-62. PubMed ID: 11655857
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. A critique of Louisiana's approach to withholding medical treatment from defective newborns.
Goichman G
South Univ Law Rev; 1983; 9(2):157-84. PubMed ID: 11652508
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
