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.
4. Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital. Great Britain. England. Court of Appeal, Civil Division All Engl Law Rep; 1984 Feb; [1984] 1():1018-36. PubMed ID: 11648155 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Rogers v. Whitaker and informed consent in Australia: a fair dinkum duty of disclosure. Chalmers D; Schwartz R Med Law Rev; 1993; 1(2):139-59. PubMed ID: 11660490 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Halley v. Birbiglia. Massachusetts. Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester Mass Rep Mass Supreme Judic Court; 1983 Dec; 390():540-50. PubMed ID: 12041108 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The doctrine of informed consent: protecting the patient's right to make informed health care decisions. Studer MR Mont Law Rev; 1987; 48(1):85-100. PubMed ID: 11658939 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Crain v. Allison. District of Columbia. Court of Appeals Atl Report; 1982 Apr; 443():558-66. PubMed ID: 11648159 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Bulman v. Myers. Pennsylvania. Superior Court Atl Report; 1983 Nov; 467():1353-6. PubMed ID: 11648495 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reibl v. Hughes. Canada. Supreme Court Dom Law Rep; 1980 Oct; 114():1-35. PubMed ID: 12041068 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Hook v. Rothstein. South Carolina. Court of Appeals South East Report Second Ser; 1984 Apr; 316():690-705. PubMed ID: 12041306 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Hopp v. Lepp. Canada. Supreme Court Dom Law Rep; 1980 May; 112():67-83. PubMed ID: 12041085 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Arato v. Avedon. California. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3 Wests Calif Report; 1992 Aug; 11():169-88. PubMed ID: 11648615 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Butler v. Brown. Georgia. Court of Appeals South East Report Second Ser; 1982 Apr; 290():293-5. PubMed ID: 12041310 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Informed consent and the disclosure of risks of treatment: the Supreme Court of Canada decides. Dillon JR Bioethics Q; 1981; 3(3-4):156-62. PubMed ID: 11649479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Doe v. Noe. Illinois. Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division North East Rep Second Ser; 1997 Dec; 690():1012-23. PubMed ID: 12041225 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dixon v. Peters. North Carolina. Court of Appeals South East Report Second Ser; 1983 Sep; 306():477-84. PubMed ID: 12041305 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The surgeon's duty to warn of risks: transatlantic approach rejected by Court of Appeal. Brahams D Lancet; 1984 Mar; 1(8376):578-9. PubMed ID: 11644281 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Rush v. Miller. U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Fed Report; 1981 May; 648():1075-6. PubMed ID: 11648166 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Castell v. De Greef. South Africa. Supreme Court, Cape Provincial Division S Afr Law Rep; 1994 Feb; 1994(4):408-41. PubMed ID: 12041097 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]