266 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11646791)
1. Hospital sets policy on pregnant patients' rights.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1990 Nov; ():B14. PubMed ID: 11646791
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Wide appeal filed on forced Caesarean delivery.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1987 Nov; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11646626
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Resisting the temptation to turn medical recommendations into judicial orders: a reconsideration of court-ordered surgery for pregnant women.
Scott C
Ga State Univ Law Rev; 1994 May; 10(4):615-89. PubMed ID: 11656420
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. In re A.C.: a court-ordered cesarean becomes precedent for nonconsensual organ harvesting.
Sturgess RH
Nova Law Rev; 1989; 13(2):649-69. PubMed ID: 11650356
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Court-ordered cesarean sections: an example of the dangers of judicial involvement in medical decision making.
Stanyer BT
Gonzaga Law Rev; 1992-1993; 28(1):121-40. PubMed ID: 11654037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The constitutionality of court-ordered cesarean surgery: a threshold question.
Levine EM
Albany Law J Sci Technol; 1994; 4(2):229-309. PubMed ID: 12091921
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Forced cesarean sections: do the ends justify the means?
Drigotas EE
North Carol Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 70(1):297-321. PubMed ID: 11651652
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Medical choices during pregnancy: whose decision is it anyway?
Goldberg S
Rutgers Law Rev; 1989; 41(2):591-623. PubMed ID: 11649263
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The recent amendments to the Texas Natural Death Act: implications for health care providers.
Greenfield RE
St Marys Law J; 1986; 17(3):1003-51. PubMed ID: 11652489
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The maternal abdominal wall: a fortress against fetal health care?
Phelan JP
South Calif Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 65(1):461-90. PubMed ID: 11645842
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Planning on a miracle: the case of mother versus fetus.
Paris JJ
Christ Century; 1994 Mar; 111(8):244-5. PubMed ID: 11659999
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. New medical technology: a chance to reexamine court-ordered medical procedures during pregnancy.
Ouellette A
Albany Law Rev; 1994; 57(3):927-60. PubMed ID: 11652868
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Courts acting to force care of the unborn.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1987 Nov; ():A1, B10. PubMed ID: 11647835
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Toward guidelines for compelling cesarean surgery: of rights, responsibility, and decisional authenticity.
Finer JJ
Minn Law Rev; 1991 Dec; 76(2):239-94. PubMed ID: 11659551
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. New York panel urges widening patients' rights.
Sullivan R
N Y Times Web; 1987 Sep; ():A1, B3. PubMed ID: 11646631
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A structural analysis of the physician-patient relationship in no-code decisionmaking.
Hashimoto DM
Yale Law J; 1983 Dec; 93(2):362-83. PubMed ID: 11658880
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Refusal of life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill incompetent patients: court orders and an alternative.
Rubin BL
Columbia J Law Soc Probl; 1985; 19(1):19-68. PubMed ID: 11658755
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. A time to be born and a time to die: a pregnant woman's right to die with dignity.
Mulholland KA
Indiana Law Rev; 1987; 20(4):859-78. PubMed ID: 11652514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. In re A.C.
District of Columbia. Court of Appeals, en banc
Atl Report; 1990 Apr; 573():1235-64. PubMed ID: 11648191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Judicial intervention in pregnancy.
Martin S; Coleman M
McGill Law J; 1995 Aug; 40(4):947-91. PubMed ID: 11654475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
