210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11645475)
1. Panel specifies who should decide to 'pull the plug.
Med World News; 1982 Nov; 23(24):6-9. PubMed ID: 11645475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The care of defective neonates, ethics committees and federal intervention.
Riga PJ
Linacre Q; 1984 Aug; 51(3):255-76. PubMed ID: 11649572
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Confusion over the language of the Baby Doe regulations.
Bermel J
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Dec; 16(6):2. PubMed ID: 11643944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. If not that way, what way?
America (NY); 1986 Jul; 155(2):21. PubMed ID: 11658787
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Practicing the PSDA.
Rouse F; Johnson S; Brock DW; Emanuel L; Wolf SM; Mason D; Mezey M; Purtilo RB; McCloskey EL
Hastings Cent Rep; 1991; 21(5):S1-16. PubMed ID: 11642934
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Medical ethics in life and death.
Thompson R
Editor Res Rep; 1984 Feb; 1(8):147-68. PubMed ID: 11652477
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Who should make medical decisions?
Genel M
Conn Med; 1984 Aug; 48(8):547-8. PubMed ID: 11644157
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The legislative response to Infant Doe.
Kuzma AL
Indiana Law J; 1983-1984; 59(3):377-416. PubMed ID: 11658614
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Born to live or born to die: the handicapped newborn in New Jersey.
Sarno JJ
Seton Hall Legis J; 1987; 11(1):201-22. PubMed ID: 11651899
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Baby Doe and local option.
Hentoff N
Washington Post; 1984 Jun; ():A19. PubMed ID: 11646290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe.
Drinan RF
America (NY); 1986 Mar; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Advance directives: the United States experience.
Cranford RE
Humane Med; 1993 Jan; 9(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 11652943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn.
Horan DJ; Balch BJ
Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Another court challenge predicted following revised 'Baby Doe' rule.
Med World News; 1983 Jul; 24(14):54, 59. PubMed ID: 11645668
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
