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.
335 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11645668)
1. 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]
2. 'Infant Doe': a hospital ethics committee can help. Capron AM Washington Post; 1983 Apr; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11646278 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Health care groups favor local 'Baby Doe' review. Med World News; 1983 Sep; 24(18):9. PubMed ID: 11645497 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 'Baby Doe' may be undone. Caplan AL N Y Times Web; 1985 Feb; ():23. PubMed ID: 11646288 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Baby Jane Doe ruling upheld; suit fails. Curran M Ob Gyn News; 1983 Dec 15-31; 18(24):8. PubMed ID: 11653509 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Suit emphasizes drawbacks of 'Baby Doe' rules. Am Med News; 1984 Mar 23-30; 27(12):4. PubMed ID: 11646355 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. If not that way, what way? America (NY); 1986 Jul; 155(2):21. PubMed ID: 11658787 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. ACOG, AMA object to new 'Baby Doe' rule. Curran M Ob Gyn News; 1984 Feb 15-29; 19(4):3, 42. PubMed ID: 11653543 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Lawsuit challenges 'Baby Doe' regulation. Am Med News; 1984 Mar 23-30; 27(12):1, 7. PubMed ID: 11646353 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Model Procedures for Child Protective Service Agencies Responding to Reports of Withholding Medically Indicated Treatment from Disabled Infants with Life-Threatening Conditions. Nicholson EB; Horowitz RM; Parry J; ; Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1986; 10(3):221-49. PubMed ID: 11651933 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 'Baby Doe' proposed reg suffers setback in court. Med World News; 1983 Dec; 24(23):27. PubMed ID: 11645566 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]