231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11647835)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Prenatal invasions and interventions: what's wrong with fetal rights?
Gallagher J
Harv Womens Law J; 1987; 10():9-58. PubMed ID: 11649954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. The troubling question of 'fetal rights': should denying care to the unborn be a crime?
Begley S; Wingert P; Huck J; Quade V
Newsweek; 1986 Dec; 108(23):87. PubMed ID: 11653763
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A feminist response to 'Unborn child abuse: contemplating legal solution.
Dawson TB
Can J Fam Law; 1991; 9(2):157-76. PubMed ID: 11656495
[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. Wide appeal filed on forced Caesarean delivery.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1987 Nov; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11646626
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Defining the boundaries of personal privacy: is there a paternal interest in compelling therapeutic fetal surgery?
Blickenstaff DC
Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1994; 88(3):1157-99. PubMed ID: 11656414
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Power and procreation: state interference in pregnancy.
Hanigsberg JE
Ottawa Law Rev; 1991; 23(1):35-70. PubMed ID: 11656189
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Hospital sets policy on pregnant patients' rights.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1990 Nov; ():B14. PubMed ID: 11646791
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Regulating women's bodies: the adverse effect of fetal rights theory on childbirth decisions and women of color.
Krauss DJ
Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1991; 26(2):523-47. PubMed ID: 11652068
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Procreative liberty and the control of conception, pregnancy, and childbirth.
Robertson JA
Va Law Rev; 1983 Apr; 69(3):405-64. PubMed ID: 11651806
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Furthering the inquiry: race, class, and culture in the forced medical treatment of pregnant women.
Ikemoto LC
Tenn Law Rev; 1992; 59(3):487-517. PubMed ID: 11652636
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Pregnant women and the duty to rescue: a feminist response to the fetal rights debate.
Bennett B
Law Context; 1991; 9():70-91. PubMed ID: 11660071
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Fetal operation opens up legal controversy.
Anderson I
New Sci; 1986 Oct; 112(1530):20. PubMed ID: 11655809
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
