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)
41. The ideal of community in the work of the President's Commission. Burt RA Cardozo Law Rev; 1984; 6(2):267-86. PubMed ID: 11651800 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. Withdrawal of life support: conflict among patient wishes, family, physicians, courts and statutes, and the law. Tarantino LM Buffalo Law Rev; 1994; 42(2):623-52. PubMed ID: 11652996 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
43. Laetrile: may the state intervene on behalf of a minor? Ainsworth MV; Wall T Univ Kans Law Rev; 1982; 30(3):409-28. PubMed ID: 12083079 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
44. Life, death and the rights of handicapped babies. Schmeck HM N Y Times Web; 1985 Jun; ():C1, C3. PubMed ID: 11646493 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. 'Baby Doe' proposed reg suffers setback in court. Med World News; 1983 Dec; 24(23):27. PubMed ID: 11645566 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. Groups seek to force new 'Baby Doe' laws. Med World News; 1984 Jun; 25(12):14. PubMed ID: 11645514 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. 'Baby Doe' may be undone. Caplan AL N Y Times Web; 1985 Feb; ():23. PubMed ID: 11646288 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. What ever happened to Baby Jane...Doe? Jolly CM West State Univ Law Rev; 1987; 14(2):543-9. PubMed ID: 11651891 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Recent developments in the law governing medical treatment for older people and people with disabilities. National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled Clgh Rev; 1988 May; 22(1):31-42. PubMed ID: 11652540 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Medical authority and infanticide. Malone PA J Law Health; 1985-1986; 1(1):77-111. PubMed ID: 11658876 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. The plight of the genetically handicapped newborn: a comparative analysis. Smith GP Holdsworth Law Rev; 1984; 9(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 12091924 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Refusal of lifesaving treatment for minors. Annas GJ J Fam Law; 1984-1985; 23(2):217-40. PubMed ID: 11651846 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Confusion over the language of the Baby Doe regulations. Bermel J Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Dec; 16(6):2. PubMed ID: 11643944 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. The survival of Baby Doe. Lancet; 1984 Jan; 1(8370):215. PubMed ID: 11644275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Legal and ethical issues concerning treatment of seriously ill newborns. Johnson V Loyola Law Rev; 1985; 30(4):925-51. PubMed ID: 11651874 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
57. Ruling on Baby Doe: impact limited. Malcolm AH N Y Times Web; 1986 Jun; ():A16. PubMed ID: 11646486 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. 'Baby Doe' compromise approved. Med World News; 1984 Oct; 25(19):14. PubMed ID: 11645529 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]