143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11646285)
1. Deciding whether the baby lives.
Curran M
Washington Post; 1985 May; ():Health Su-17. PubMed ID: 11646285
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 'Baby Doe' may be undone.
Caplan AL
N Y Times Web; 1985 Feb; ():23. PubMed ID: 11646288
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Baby Doe and local option.
Hentoff N
Washington Post; 1984 Jun; ():A19. PubMed ID: 11646290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Infant care review committees: their moral responsibilities.
Barry RL
Linacre Q; 1985 Nov; 52(4):361-74. PubMed ID: 11651843
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Protecting handicapped infants.
Washington Post; 1984 Dec; ():A18. PubMed ID: 11646438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The legacy of Baby Doe: five perspectives.
Ciulla JB
Psychol Today; 1987 Jan; 21(1):70-71, 74-75. PubMed ID: 11658812
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The case of Baby Rena: while child suffered, beliefs clashed.
Weiser B
Washington Post; 1991 Jul; ():A1, A6-7. PubMed ID: 11646243
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 'Infant Doe': a hospital ethics committee can help.
Capron AM
Washington Post; 1983 Apr; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11646278
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Institutional ethics committee's roles, responsibilities, and benefits for physicians.
Minnesota Medical Association. Committee on Ethics and Medical-Legal Affairs
Minn Med; 1985 Aug; 68(8):605, 607-612. PubMed ID: 11643801
[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. 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]
12. Ethical implications of clinical judgment (the role of the hospital bioethics committee).
Sherman SR
Conn Med; 1984 Feb; 48(2):131-2. PubMed ID: 11644115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Medical ethics and the hopelessly ill child.
Waldman AM
J Pediatr Surg; 1976 May; 88(5):890-2. PubMed ID: 11662999
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Bedside story.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics; 1992; 1(1):85-6. PubMed ID: 11643075
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Guidelines proposed for decisions in care of disabled infants.
Franklin D
Sci News; 1984 May; 125(18):286. PubMed ID: 11653550
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Treatment of seriously ill and handicapped newborns.
Fost N
Crit Care Clin; 1986 Jan; 2(1):145-59. PubMed ID: 11644122
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
