205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11648233)
21. Wishes of patient in refusing care backed in Jersey.
Sullivan JF
N Y Times Web; 1987 Jun; ():A1, B12. PubMed ID: 11647828
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Someone make up my mind: the troubling right to die issues presented by incompetent patients with no prior expression of a treatment preference.
Richard SM
Notre Dame Law Rev; 1989; 64(3):394-421. PubMed ID: 11659243
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. In re Storar: the right to die and incompetent patients.
Colabrese CA
Univ Pittsbg Law Rev; 1982; 43(4):1087-107. PubMed ID: 11658613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Constitutional law--can a "life advocate" impair the constitutional right to reject life-prolonging medical treatment?--In re Jobes, 210 N.J.Super. 543, 510 A.2d 133.
Armstrong A
Cumberland Law Rev; 1986-1987; 17(2):553-68. PubMed ID: 11658968
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Withholding life-prolonging medical treatment from the institutionalized person--who decides?
Corbett KA; Raciti RM
New Engl J Prison Law; 1976; 3(1):47-83. PubMed ID: 11664738
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. The right to die in peace: substituted consent and the mentally incompetent.
Brant J
Suffolk Univ Law Rev; 1977; 11(4):959-73. PubMed ID: 11664849
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. In the matter of George Clark.
Nimz M
Issues Law Med; 1987 Mar; 2(5):409-12. PubMed ID: 11644464
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Cruzan and its impact on patient self-determination.
Gilbert LJ
J Fam Law; 1991-1992; 30(1):111-33. PubMed ID: 11659441
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. In the Matter of Elizabeth Visbeck: an alleged incompetent.
Nimz MM
Issues Law Med; 1987 Mar; 2(5):405-8. PubMed ID: 11644463
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Substituted judgment in medical decision making for incompetent persons: In re Storar.
Williams SE
Wis L Rev; 1982; 1982(6):1173-98. PubMed ID: 11651834
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. The legal aspects of the right to die: before and after the Quinlan decision.
Becker D; Fleming R; Overstreet R
KY Law J; 1977; 65(4):823-79. PubMed ID: 11661533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Privacy I: surrogate decision making for the terminally ill.
Eisenberg KG
Annu Surv Am Law; 1988; 1(2):353-84. PubMed ID: 11652656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. The Virginia Natural Death Act--a critical analysis.
Murphy JG
Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1983; 17(4):863-79. PubMed ID: 11649800
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. In re Drabick.
California. Court of Appeal, Sixth District
Wests Calif Report; 1988 Apr; 245():840-61. PubMed ID: 11648267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Ombudsman bars food-tube removal.
Sullivan R
N Y Times Web; 1986 Mar; ():B2. PubMed ID: 11646515
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. From Quinlan to Cruzan: patterns in the fabric of US "right-to-die" case law.
Allsopp ME
Humane Med; 1992 Apr; 8(2):122-31. PubMed ID: 11651322
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Therefore, choose death.
Brown ML
Human Rights; 1982; 10(3):38-45. PubMed ID: 11651709
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Decisionmaking in authorizing and withholding life sustaining medical treatment: from Quinlan to Cruzan.
Keilitz I; Bilzor JC; Hafemeister TL; Brown V; Dudyshyn D
Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1989; 13(5):482-93. PubMed ID: 11654759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The right of elderly patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment.
Annas GJ; Glantz LH
Milbank Q; 1986; 64(Suppl. 2):95-162. PubMed ID: 11649886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
