393 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11652479)
1. 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]
2. The future of Baby Doe.
Singer P; Kuhse H
New York Rev Books; 1984 Mar; 31(3):17-22. PubMed ID: 11658414
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Baby Doe cases: compromise and moral dilemma.
Haddon PA
Emory Law J; 1985; 34(3-4):545-615. PubMed ID: 11658790
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The sanctity of life, the quality of life and the new 'Baby Doe' law.
Johnstone BV
Linacre Q; 1985 Aug; 52(3):258-70. PubMed ID: 11649728
[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. "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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Delivery room resuscitation of the high-risk infant: a conflict of rights.
Cooper R
Cathol Lawyer; 1990; 33(4):325-60. PubMed ID: 11659422
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Bowen v. American Hospital Association: federal regulation is powerless to save Baby Doe.
Cantrell DF
Indiana Law Rev; 1986; 19(4):1199-218. PubMed ID: 11650766
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Medical ethics in life and death.
Thompson R
Editor Res Rep; 1984 Feb; 1(8):147-68. PubMed ID: 11652477
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Of diagnoses and discrimination: discriminatory nontreatment of infants with HIV infection.
Crossley MA
Columbia Law Rev; 1993 Nov; 93(7):1581-667. PubMed ID: 11659791
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
