197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11648571)
1. Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
California. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4
Wests Calif Report; 1988 Jul; 249():494-540. PubMed ID: 11648571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: expanded disclosure, limited property rights.
Potts J
Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1992; 86(2):453-96. PubMed ID: 11659500
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Cells for sale.
Stone J
Discover; 1988 Aug; 9(8):33-9. PubMed ID: 11650025
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Biotechnology, patients' rights, and the Moore case.
Howard JJ
Food Drug Cosmet Law J; 1989 Jul; 44(4):331-58. PubMed ID: 11659209
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Controlling conflicts of interest in the doctor-patient relationship: lessons from Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
Healey JM; Dowling KL
Mercer Law Rev; 1991; 42(3):989-1005. PubMed ID: 11651440
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Biotechnology and the commercial use of human cells: toward an organic view of life and technology.
Martin PA; Lagod ML
Santa Clara Comput High Technol Law J; 1989 Jun; 5(2):211-61. PubMed ID: 11659674
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A Seattle man vents his spleen against those who would use it for profit.
Carlson P; Pilcher J
People (Chicago); 1985 Sep; 23(13):97, 100. PubMed ID: 11653641
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Ruling renews fears of limits on research.
Reinhold R
N Y Times Web; 1988 Jul; ():19. PubMed ID: 11646695
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The commercialization of human tissue -- the source of legal, ethical and social problems: an area better suited to legislative resolution.
O'Connor JJ
Loyola Los Angel Law Rev; 1990 Nov; 24(1):115-69. PubMed ID: 11659354
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Second thoughts about U.S. Patent #4,438,032.
Burrows B
Bull Med Ethics; 1997 Jan; No. 124():11-4. PubMed ID: 11655049
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Moore v. The Regents of the University of California: an ethical debate on informed consent and property rights in a patient's cells.
Prowda JB
J Pat Trademark Off Soc; 1995 Aug; 77(8):611-39. PubMed ID: 11658094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Bailment and donation of parts of the human body.
Brahams D
New Law J; 1989 Jun; 139(6411):803-4. PubMed ID: 11650943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Property rights and payment to patients for cell lines derived from human tissues: an economic analysis.
Greenberg W; Kamin D
Soc Sci Med; 1993 Apr; 36(8):1071-6. PubMed ID: 8475423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Patient sues UCLA over patent on cell line.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1984 Sep; 225(4669):1458. PubMed ID: 6474185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mo cell case has its first court hearing.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1984 Nov; 226(4676):813-4. PubMed ID: 6494909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Court rules cells are the patient's property.
Crawford M
Science; 1988 Aug; 241(4866):653-4. PubMed ID: 3399896
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Public policy symposium: the legal, ethical, and economic impact of patient material used for product development in the biomedical industry.
Royston I; Wagner AB; Caplan AL; Rosenberg LE
Clin Res; 1985 Oct; 33(4):442-58. PubMed ID: 11643828
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: patients, property rights, and public policy.
Biagi KG
St Louis Univ Law J; 1991; 35(2):433-62. PubMed ID: 16144099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Maintaining incentives for bioprospecting: the occasional need for a right to lie.
Heidt R
Berkeley Technol Law J; 1998; 13(2):667-720. PubMed ID: 11979599
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Living tissue and organ donors and property law: more on Moore.
Dickens BM
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1992; 8():73-93. PubMed ID: 10183665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
