313 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11651874)
1. 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]
2. Treatment of seriously ill and handicapped newborns.
Fost N
Crit Care Clin; 1986 Jan; 2(1):145-59. PubMed ID: 11644122
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. On letting seriously ill minors die: a review of Louisiana's Natural Death Act.
Vitiello M
Loyola Law Rev; 1985; 31(1):67-91. PubMed ID: 11651863
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Reducing suffering and ensuring beneficial outcomes for neonates: an ethical perspective.
Brodeur D
Bioethics Forum; 1995; 11(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 11653274
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The legacy of Infant Doe.
Cosby MG
Bayl Law Rev; 1982; 34(4):699-715. PubMed ID: 11651747
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Withholding treatment from defective newborns: who decides and on what criteria?
Longino PH
Univ Kans Law Rev; 1983; 31(3):377-407. PubMed ID: 11658479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Preserving the life of children.
Louisiana
Revis Statut La; 1982; Title 40 Sections 1299.36.1 to 1299.36.3():. PubMed ID: 12041499
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Balancing wishes with wisdom: sustaining infant life.
Wakefield-Fisher M
Nurs Health Care; 1987 Nov; 8(9):517-20. PubMed ID: 11644099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Quality of life, sanctity of creation: palliative or apotheosis?
Smith GP
Neb Law Rev; 1984; 63(4):709-40. PubMed ID: 11652479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Passive euthanasia of defective newborn infants: legal considerations.
Robertson JA; Fost N
J Pediatr Surg; 1976 May; 88(5):883-9. PubMed ID: 11662998
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The care of defective neonates, ethics committees and federal intervention.
Riga PJ
Linacre Q; 1984 Aug; 51(3):255-76. PubMed ID: 11649572
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Life and death decisions in the nursery: standards and procedures for withholding lifesaving treatment from infants.
Smith SR
NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1982; 27(4):1125-86. PubMed ID: 11651775
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Ethical issues in pediatric surgery: a national survey of pediatricians and pediatric surgeons.
Shaw A; Randolph JG; Manard B
Pediatrics; 1977 Oct; 60(4-Part 2):588-99. PubMed ID: 11664868
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
