252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11650028)
1. FDA treatment use regulations: a compassionate response.
Weitzman SA; Marcy T
AIDS Public Policy J; 1987; 2(2):22-32. PubMed ID: 11650028
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Private rights to adulterated/misbranded articles.
McMonagle L
AIDS Public Policy J; 1987; 2(2):33-49. PubMed ID: 11650029
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Getting new drugs to people with AIDS: a public policy response to Lansdale.
Cohen MN
Hastings Constit Law Q; 1991; 18(3):471-85. PubMed ID: 11651493
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The right of privacy in choosing medical treatment: should terminally ill persons have access to drugs not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration?
Power SH
John Marshall Law Rev; 1987; 20(4):693-714. PubMed ID: 11650094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. AIDS treatment drugs: clinical trials and compassionate use.
Levine RJ
AIDS Public Policy J; 1987; 2(2):6-8. PubMed ID: 11650031
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The uncertain application of the right of privacy in personal medical decisions: the Laetrile cases.
Christensen J
Ohio State Law J; 1981; 42(2):523-50. PubMed ID: 11649547
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Implications of the federal drug investigation and approval processes for the development and availability of AIDS treatments and vaccines.
Mathers PR
AIDS Public Policy J; 1987; 2(2):50-3. PubMed ID: 11650030
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Experimental drugs: more of them, but they're no longer free.
Caplan J
Hastings Cent Rep; 1987 Jun; 17(3):3. PubMed ID: 11644019
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Faith (healing), hope and charity at the FDA: the politics of AIDS drug trials.
Annas GJ
Villanova Law Rev; 1989 Sep; 34(5):771-97. PubMed ID: 11651162
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Laetrile: the battle moves into the courtroom.
Schwartz RL
Am Bar Assoc J; 1979 Feb; 65():224-8. PubMed ID: 11661617
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. F.D.A., in big shift, will permit use of experimental AIDS drug.
Hilts PJ
N Y Times Web; 1989 Sep; ():A1, A16. PubMed ID: 11646735
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The FDA's response to AIDS: paradigm shift in new drug policy?
Podraza R
Food Drug Law J; 1993; 48(3):351-75. PubMed ID: 11653267
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Equitable access to biomedical advances: getting beyond the rights impasse.
Mariner WK
Conn Law Rev; 1989; 21(3):571-603. PubMed ID: 11650430
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The judicial dilemma of Laetrile and a possible solution.
Pendergast WR
Mercer Law Rev; 1979; 30(3):573-84. PubMed ID: 11661827
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The changing clinical trials scene: the role of the IRB.
Mitchell SC; Steingrub J
IRB; 1988; 10(4):1-5. PubMed ID: 11650078
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Twice wrong on AIDS.
Gieringer D
N Y Times Web; 1987 Jan; ():A21. PubMed ID: 11646161
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Laetrile and the privacy right in decisional responsibility.
Volzer HJ
Med Trial Tech Q; 1980; 27(4):395-429. PubMed ID: 11662802
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Making experimental drugs available for AIDS treatment.
Krim M
AIDS Public Policy J; 1987; 2(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 11650026
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Resolution: RU 486.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Science; 1991 Apr; 252(5005):587. PubMed ID: 11642875
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The F.D.A.'s callous response to AIDS.
Kramer L
N Y Times Web; 1987 Mar; ():A19. PubMed ID: 11646190
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
