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.
189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11651746)
1. Rights of the mentally handicapped: which way in the 1980s? Friedman PR Trial; 1981 Feb; 17(2):43-46, 60-61. PubMed ID: 11651746 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. A constitutional right to treatment: past, present, and future. Wallach S Prof Psychol; 1976 Nov; 7(4):453-67. PubMed ID: 11664666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Mental commitment cases of the 1971-72 Supreme Court term. Wing KR; Carman R Clgh Rev; 1973 Mar; 6(11):659-62. PubMed ID: 11664360 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A review of the Burger Court: Part I. Parry J Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1984; 8(6):502-8. PubMed ID: 11658589 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Constitutional law--the rights of involuntarily committed mentally retarded persons under the Fourteenth Amendment: Youngberg v. Romeo. Smith GG Univ Kans Law Rev; 1983; 31(3):451-66. PubMed ID: 12083080 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The rights of the mentally ill under state constitutions. Meisel A Law Contemp Probl; 1982; 45(3):7-40. PubMed ID: 11645495 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Youngberg v. Romeo: the right to treatment dilemma and the mentally retarded. Gallo LV Albany Law Rev; 1982; 47(1):179-213. PubMed ID: 11658597 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The Supreme Court sidesteps the right to treatment question. Univ Colo Law Rev; 1976; 47(2):299-323. PubMed ID: 11664633 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Rights and dignity: Congress, the Supreme Court, and people with disabilities after Pennhurst. Ferleger D; Scott PM West New Engl Law Rev; 1983; 5(3):327-61. PubMed ID: 11658602 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Substantive due process limits on the duration of civil commitment for the treatment of mental illness. Burgett DW Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1981; 16(1):205-64. PubMed ID: 11650560 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the civil rights of institutionalized mentally disabled persons: hopeless oxymoron or path to redemption? Perlin ML; Gould KK; Dorfman DA Psychol Public Policy Law; 1995 Mar; 1(1):80-119. PubMed ID: 12803207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Two treatment rights cases argued at U.S. Supreme Court. Ment Disabil Law Rep; 1982; 6(1):12-3. PubMed ID: 11652364 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Involuntary civil commitment: the right to treatment and the right to refuse treatment. Roth LH Psychiatr Ann; 1977 May; 7(5):50-51+. PubMed ID: 11664817 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Involuntary commitment: the move toward dangerousness. Weissbourd R John Marshall Law Rev; 1982; 15(1):83-113. PubMed ID: 11658335 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Judicial schizophrenia: an involuntarily confined mental patient's right to refuse antipsychotic drugs. Cort RS UMKC Law Rev; 1982; 51(1):74-106. PubMed ID: 11658656 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Legal rights of the mentally impaired. Dowben C Houst Law Rev; 1979 May; 16(4):833-901. PubMed ID: 11651659 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Wyatt v. Stickney and the right of civilly committed mental patients to adequate treatment. Harv Law Rev; 1973 May; 86(7):1282-306. PubMed ID: 11664219 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. High court establishes rights for retarded in institutions. Barbash F Washington Post; 1982 Jun; ():A1, A5. PubMed ID: 11647762 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]