222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11648191)
1. 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]
2. Dissecting women, dissecting law: the court-ordering of caesarean section operations and the failure of informed consent to protect women of color.
Espinoza LG
Natl Black Law J; 1994; 13():211-37. PubMed ID: 11660478
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. In re A.C.
District of Columbia. Court of Appeals
Atl Report; 1987 Nov; 533():611-7. PubMed ID: 11648174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Court-ordered cesareans: can a pregnant woman refuse?
Leavine BA
Houst Law Rev; 1992; 29(1):185-218. PubMed ID: 11656666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
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. Beyond abortion: refusal of caesarean section.
Mahowald M
Bioethics; 1989 Apr; 3(2):106-21. PubMed ID: 11649241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Contemporary transatlantic developments concerning compelled medical treatment of pregnant women.
Rossiter GP
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1995 May; 35(2):132-8. PubMed ID: 7677674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Hospital sets policy on pregnant patients' rights.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1990 Nov; ():B14. PubMed ID: 11646791
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. In re Baby Boy Doe.
Illinois. Appellate Court, First District, Second Division
North East Rep Second Ser; 1994 Apr; 632():326-35. PubMed ID: 12041260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Wide appeal filed on forced Caesarean delivery.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1987 Nov; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11646626
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The judge in the delivery room: the emergence of court-ordered cesareans.
Rhoden NK
Calif Law Rev; 1986 Dec; 74(6):1951-2030. PubMed ID: 11658950
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. In re Brown.
Illinois. Appellate Court, First District, Fifth Division
North East Rep Second Ser; 1997 Dec; 689():397-406. PubMed ID: 12041238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
