226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11651744)
21. Institutional ethics committee's roles, responsibilities, and benefits for physicians.
Minnesota Medical Association. Committee on Ethics and Medical-Legal Affairs
Minn Med; 1985 Aug; 68(8):605, 607-612. PubMed ID: 11643801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. What do we owe to Baby Jane?
Burke RL; Monaco GP; Kaufman R; Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1984 Aug; 14(4):49-50. PubMed ID: 11644161
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Brian: another side in debate over severe birth defects.
Mathews J
Washington Post; 1982 May; ():A1, A18. PubMed ID: 11646262
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Doctors shoulder the responsibility of life or death of handicapped infant.
Med World News; 1984 Sep; 25(17):31-2. PubMed ID: 11645523
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Case presentation 1 (1990): an infant with necrotic skin lesion -- responses by the Bioethics Study Group that convenes at the National Institutes of Health and by the patient's HEC.
HEC Forum; 1990; 2(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 11645675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Suit emphasizes drawbacks of 'Baby Doe' rules.
Am Med News; 1984 Mar 23-30; 27(12):4. PubMed ID: 11646355
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Deciding whether the baby lives.
Curran M
Washington Post; 1985 May; ():Health Su-17. PubMed ID: 11646285
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment).
Great Britain. England. Court of Appeal, Civil Division
All Engl Law Rep; 1981 Aug; [1990] 3():927-30. PubMed ID: 11648312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Stopping treatment: who decides?
Ramsey P; Veatch RM
Hastings Cent Rep; 1978 Feb; 8(1):43. PubMed ID: 11643437
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Reponse to Freeman: the Stony Brook perspective.
Newman G
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986; 11(2):295-6. PubMed ID: 11643931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The Metropolitan New York Ethics Committee Network: coming together at a time of concern.
Zuckerman C
Fordham Int Law J; 1993 Mar; 5(2):108-14. PubMed ID: 11651585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Wrongdoing denied in care of 24 handicapped babies.
Hall HB
Washington Post; 1985 May; ():A2. PubMed ID: 11646426
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Unfashionable civil rights.
Will GF
Washington Post; 1983 Nov; ():C7. PubMed ID: 11646275
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Ethical implications of clinical judgment (the role of the hospital bioethics committee).
Sherman SR
Conn Med; 1984 Feb; 48(2):131-2. PubMed ID: 11644115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. In the matter of the treatment and care of Infant Doe. Declaratory judgment. Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, State of Indiana.
Conn Med; 1983 Jul; 47(7):409-10. PubMed ID: 6224632
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Hospital bioethics: a beginning knowledge base for the neonatal social worker.
Silverman E
Soc Work; 1992 Mar; 37(2):150-4. PubMed ID: 11642999
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Johnson v. Sullivan.
Nimz MM
Issues Law Med; 1988; 4(1):123-5. PubMed ID: 11644472
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The tragic case of Karen Ann Quinlan.
Healey JM
Conn Med; 1979 Jun; 43(6):399. PubMed ID: 11643501
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Letting defective babies die: who decides?
Ellis TS
Am J Law Med; 1982; 7(4):393-423. PubMed ID: 7102678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Treatment of the severely handicapped infant.
S Afr Med J; 1981 Dec; 60(25):945-6. PubMed ID: 11643683
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
