363 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11652439)
1. Criminal law--homicide--removal of intravenous feeding line from vegetative, comatose patient at family's request is not murder. Barber v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (1983).
Crook RR
Cumberland Law Rev; 1984-1985; 15(1):225-37. PubMed ID: 11652439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. I.V. withdrawal: the severance of medicine's or society's umbilical cord? Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 137 Cal.App.3d 1006, 195 Cal.Rptr. 484 (1983).
Chrisman JP
Neb Law Rev; 1984; 63(4):941-72. PubMed ID: 11652480
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Barber v. Superior Court of State of California; Nejdl v. Superior Court of State of California.
California. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2
Wests Calif Report; 1983 Oct; 195():484-94. PubMed ID: 11648259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Incompetents and the right to die: in search of consistent meaningful standards.
Strasser M
KY Law J; 1994-1995; 83(4):733-98. PubMed ID: 11654615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Living will statutes: the first decade.
Gelfand G
Wis L Rev; 1987; 5(5):737-822. PubMed ID: 11650367
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The recent amendments to the Texas Natural Death Act: implications for health care providers.
Greenfield RE
St Marys Law J; 1986; 17(3):1003-51. PubMed ID: 11652489
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Decisionmaking in authorizing and withholding life sustaining medical treatment: from Quinlan to Cruzan.
Keilitz I; Bilzor JC; Hafemeister TL; Brown V; Dudyshyn D
Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1989; 13(5):482-93. PubMed ID: 11654759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Death and dying in Tennessee.
McKenney EJ
Memphis State Univ Law Rev; 1977; 7(4):503-54. PubMed ID: 11663172
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Judge rules for doctors in plug-pulling murder charge.
Med World News; 1983 Apr; 24(7):28-9. PubMed ID: 11653500
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Nonfeeding: lawful killing in CA, homicide in NJ.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Dec; 13(6):19-20. PubMed ID: 11644094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. In re Drabick.
Di Somma AV
Issues Law Med; 1989; 4(4):519-24. PubMed ID: 11644377
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Right to die: a survey of legislative and judicial responses to life-support technology.
Richardson E
Glendale Law Rev; 1981-1982; 5(2):188-202. PubMed ID: 11652441
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Right-to-die damage actions: developments in the law.
Miller DH
Denver Univ Law Rev; 1988; 65(2-3):181-212. PubMed ID: 11659201
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Bioethics in the courts: summaries of selected judicial decisions, 1989 to 1995.
Nelson LJ
Clin Ethics Rep; 1995; 9(1-2):1-20. PubMed ID: 11653201
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. MDs, lawyers probe ethical, legal issues in ending treatment.
Bolsen B
Am Med News; 1984 Apr; 27(13):11-3. PubMed ID: 11653535
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Legal aspects of terminating care.
Beresford HR
Semin Neurol; 1984 Mar; 4(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 11649664
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Privacy I: surrogate decision making for the terminally ill.
Eisenberg KG
Annu Surv Am Law; 1988; 1(2):353-84. PubMed ID: 11652656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Death and life decisions: who is in control?
Kenney SC
Loyola Los Angel Law Rev; 1990 Apr; 23(3):791-828. PubMed ID: 11652584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Physician willingness to withhold tube feeding after Cruzan: an empirical study.
Peters PG; Ely JW; Zweig SC; Elder NC; Schneider FD
Miss Law Rev; 1992; 57():831-48. PubMed ID: 11654076
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. In re Bayer.
Di Somma AV
Issues Law Med; 1988; 4(1):119-21. PubMed ID: 11644471
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
