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.
3. 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]
4. Court-ordered cesareans: a growing concern for indigent women. Daniels JA Clgh Rev; 1988 Feb; 21(9):1064-71. PubMed ID: 11649972 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Forced medical treatment of pregnant women: "compelling each to live as seems good to the rest. Nelson LJ; Buggy BP; Weil CJ Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):703-63. PubMed ID: 11655855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The maternal abdominal wall: a fortress against fetal health care? Phelan JP South Calif Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 65(1):461-90. PubMed ID: 11645842 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. New medical technology: a chance to reexamine court-ordered medical procedures during pregnancy. Ouellette A Albany Law Rev; 1994; 57(3):927-60. PubMed ID: 11652868 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Fetal rights and maternal rights: is there a conflict? Rogers S Can J Women Law; 1986; 1(2):456-69. PubMed ID: 11651100 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Forced obstetrical intervention: a charter analysis. Grant I Univ Tor Law J; 1989; 39(3):217-57. PubMed ID: 11656008 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Furthering the inquiry: race, class, and culture in the forced medical treatment of pregnant women. Ikemoto LC Tenn Law Rev; 1992; 59(3):487-517. PubMed ID: 11652636 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Defining the boundaries of personal privacy: is there a paternal interest in compelling therapeutic fetal surgery? Blickenstaff DC Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1994; 88(3):1157-99. PubMed ID: 11656414 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The fetus and the law--whose life is it anyway? Gallagher J Ms; 1984 Sep; 13(3):62, 64, 66+. PubMed ID: 11655606 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A pregnant woman's decision to decline treatment: how should the law respond? Seymour J J Law Med; 1994 Aug; 2(1):27-37. PubMed ID: 11660250 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Mama vs. fetus. Hornick HL Med Trial Tech Q; 1993; 39(4):536-69. PubMed ID: 11659785 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Fetal surgery: a developing legal dilemma. Rauscher K St Louis Univ Law J; 1987 Sep; 31(3):775-95. PubMed ID: 11658987 [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]