196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11644441)
1. A disturbing judgment by the Court of Appeal.
Lancet; 1985 Jan; 1(8419):24-5. PubMed ID: 11644441
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The Gillick saga The Gillick saga -- II.
Williams G
New Law J; 1985 Nov 22-29; 135(6230 and 6231):1156-1158, 1179-1182. PubMed ID: 11660424
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. DHSS's revised guidance on contraceptive services for young people.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1986 Mar; 292(6522):782. PubMed ID: 11658692
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority.
Great Britain. England. Court of Appeal, Civil Division
All Engl Law Rep; 1984 Nov 19-Dec 20 (date of decision); 1985(1):533-59. PubMed ID: 11648530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Parents, doctors and children: the Gillick case and beyond.
De Cruz SP
J Soc Welfare Law; 1987 Mar; ():93-108. PubMed ID: 11658930
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Confidentiality and young people.
Gillick V
Ethics Med; 1988; 4(2):21-3. PubMed ID: 11659097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Contraception and the under-16s.
Lancet; 1985 Apr; 1(8432):827. PubMed ID: 11644482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Under-age contraception--whose responsibility?
S Afr Med J; 1983 Oct; 64(16):603-4. PubMed ID: 11644057
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Professional confidence in relation to young persons who seek treatment concerning pregnancy or contraceptive advice.
Great Britain. General Medical Council
Lancet; 1985 Feb; 1(8426):470. PubMed ID: 11644443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Taking a lesson from England: the contraceptive controversy.
Mitchell MJ
Loyola Los Angel Int Comp Law J; 1987; 9(2):499-522. PubMed ID: 11658961
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Further thoughts on Mrs. Gillick's case.
Wells W
Lancet; 1985 Nov; 2(8464):1138-9. PubMed ID: 11644491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Request to GMC to reconsider guidance on contraception and the under 16s.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1986 Apr; 292(6525):966-7. PubMed ID: 11652459
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Teenage confidence and consent.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1985 Jan; 290(6462):144-5. PubMed ID: 3917719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Concern at Gillick judgment.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1985 Jan; 290(6464):336. PubMed ID: 11652426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The doctor and the underage girl.
Slack K
Christ Century; 1985 Feb; 102(6):174-6. PubMed ID: 11653712
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Court of Appeals rules DHSS notice on family planning contrary to law.
Brahams D
Lancet; 1985 Jan; 1(8419):59-61. PubMed ID: 2856993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Who has the right to advise children on birth control?
Gerber P; Rahemtula A
Med J Aust; 1986 Apr; 144(8):419-23. PubMed ID: 3959972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. House of Lords rules DHSS guidance on contraception lawful.
Brahams D
Lancet; 1985 Oct; 2(8461):959-60. PubMed ID: 2865463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The underage girl: a surprising judgment.
Slack K
Christ Century; 1985 Nov; 102(36):1054-6. PubMed ID: 11658599
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. GMC's revised guidance.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1986 Feb; 292(6519):570. PubMed ID: 11652455
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
