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.
470 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11651814)
1. The treatment of handicapped newborns: is there a role for law? Burt RA Issues Law Med; 1986 Jan; 1(4):279-91. PubMed ID: 11651814 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Infant care review committees: an effective approach to the Baby Doe dilemma? Shapiro RS; Barthel R Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):827-62. PubMed ID: 11655857 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Beyond state intervention in the family: for Baby Jane Doe. Minow M Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1985; 18(4):933-1014. PubMed ID: 11655183 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn. Horan DJ; Balch BJ Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Disabled newborns and the federal child abuse amendments: tenuous protection. Smith SR Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):765-825. PubMed ID: 11655856 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Born to live or born to die: the handicapped newborn in New Jersey. Sarno JJ Seton Hall Legis J; 1987; 11(1):201-22. PubMed ID: 11651899 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. "New" rights for handicapped newborns: Baby Doe and beyond. Phillips CA Calif West Law Rev; 1985; 22(1):127-58. PubMed ID: 11658804 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The legacy of Infant Doe. Cosby MG Bayl Law Rev; 1982; 34(4):699-715. PubMed ID: 11651747 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Baby Doe's new guardians: federal policy brings nontreatment decisions out of hiding. Born MA KY Law J; 1986-1987; 75(3):659-75. PubMed ID: 11651897 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. A critique of Louisiana's approach to withholding medical treatment from defective newborns. Goichman G South Univ Law Rev; 1983; 9(2):157-84. PubMed ID: 11652508 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Withholding treatment from newborns with severe birth defects. Freeman JM; Fletcher AB; Doudera AE Law Med Health Care; 1982 Jun; 10(3):98, 142-143. PubMed ID: 11643894 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Forgoing treatment of critically ill newborns and the legal legacy of Baby Doe. Nelson LJ Clin Ethics Rep; 1992; 6(2):1-6. PubMed ID: 11652072 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Severely disabled newborns: to live or let die? Jackson CC J Leg Med; 1987 Mar; 8(1):135-76. PubMed ID: 11644153 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe. Drinan RF America (NY); 1986 Mar; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Withdrawal of life-support in the newborn: whose baby is it? Clark FI Southwest Univ Law Rev; 1993; 23(1):1-46. PubMed ID: 11659817 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Amendments to Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Public Law 98-457. United States US Statut Large; 1984; 98(Title I Sections 101a-312a):. PubMed ID: 11686171 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The legislative response to Infant Doe. Kuzma AL Indiana Law J; 1983-1984; 59(3):377-416. PubMed ID: 11658614 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Law, medicine, and morality: the cases of Infant Doe and Pamela Hamilton. Klinefelter D J Law Relig; 1984; 2(2):413-27. PubMed ID: 11651848 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Treatment dilemmas for imperiled newborns: why quality of life counts. Rhoden NK South Calif Law Rev; 1985 Sep; 58(6):1283-347. PubMed ID: 11660412 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]