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.
140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11647167)
1. The artificial womb is born. Klass P N Y Times Mag; 1996 Sep; ():117-9. PubMed ID: 11647167 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Predicting the future of privacy in pregnancy: how medical technology affects the legal rights of pregnant women. Annas GJ Nova Law Rev; 1989; 13(2):329-53. PubMed ID: 11650347 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Current technology affecting Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. Buckley M NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1982; 27(4):1221-60. PubMed ID: 11651778 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Maternal-fetal conflict and in utero fetal therapy. Steinbock B Albany Law Rev; 1994; 57(3):781-93. PubMed ID: 11652864 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Judicial decision making and biological fact: Roe v. Wade and the unresolved question of fetal viability. Blank RH West Polit Q; 1984 Dec; 37(4):584-602. PubMed ID: 11655744 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Human embryo and gene manipulation. Hubbard R Sci People; 1983; 15(3):24-7. PubMed ID: 11650582 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. "Grey gentlemen, young ladies, and the fetus in the maternal compartment": observations at the International Conference on "The Fetus as a Patient," Bonn, 24-26 August 1991. Schulze C Issues Reprod Genet Eng; 1992; 5(1):71-4. PubMed ID: 11651334 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. "Squatter's rights in the ovum": the unborn as patient. Neustadter R Free Inq Creat Sociol; 1992 Nov; 20(2):199-204. PubMed ID: 11653263 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The right to begin life with sound body and mind: fetal patients and conflicts with their mothers. Dougherty CJ Univ Detroit Law Rev; 1985; 63(1-2):89-117. PubMed ID: 11659281 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. "Pluck a fetus from its womb": a critique of current attitudes toward the embryo/fetus. Overall C Univ West Ont Law Rev; 1986 Jun; 24(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 11651875 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Lack of consent although informed: fetal neglect. Reece SA; Reece EA Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):130-44. PubMed ID: 11649199 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Respecting liberty and preventing harm: limits of state intervention in prenatal choice. Mathieu D Harv J Law Public Policy; 1985; 8(1):19-55. PubMed ID: 11655781 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Trimesters and technology: revamping Roe v. Wade. Rhoden NK Yale Law J; 1986 Mar; 95(4):639-97. PubMed ID: 11655828 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Reconciling fetal/maternal conflicts. Kim RH Ida Law Rev; 1990-1991; 27(2):223-48. PubMed ID: 16032814 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Technological advances and Roe v. Wade: the need to rethink abortion law. Martyn K UCLA Law Rev; 1982; 29(5-6):1194-215. PubMed ID: 11655743 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Who gets to choose? Responses to the foetal/maternal conflict. Hyams R E Law; 1995 Dec; 2(3):E7. PubMed ID: 16969923 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]