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.
187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11653500)
21. From Quinlan to Cruzan: patterns in the fabric of US "right-to-die" case law. Allsopp ME Humane Med; 1992 Apr; 8(2):122-31. PubMed ID: 11651322 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. McConnell v. Beverly Enterprises. Di Somma AV Issues Law Med; 1989; 4(4):525-33. PubMed ID: 11644378 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Incompetent patient in PVS: views of relatives and "best interests": Re G. Grubb A Med Law Rev; 1995; 3(1):80-4. PubMed ID: 11656729 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. The Nancy Cruzan case. McCormick RA Midwest Med Ethics; 1989; 5(1-2):2-31. PubMed ID: 12091960 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Persistent vegetative state. Great Britain. Official Solicitor for England and Wales Bull Med Ethics; 1996 Oct; No. 122():19-20. PubMed ID: 11654864 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Right-to-die order revoked as patient in coma awakes. Verhovek SH N Y Times Web; 1989 Apr; ():B3. PubMed ID: 11646710 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland. Great Britain. House of Lords All Engl Law Rep; 1993 Feb; [1993]1():821-96. PubMed ID: 11648606 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Constitutional development of judicial criteria in right-to-die cases: from brain dead to persistent vegetative state. Morgan R; Harty-Golder B Wake Forest Law Rev; 1988; 23(4):721-65. PubMed ID: 11652556 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Balancing the right to die with competing interests: a socio-legal enigma. Peterson GW Pepperdine Law Rev; 1985; 13(1):109-55. PubMed ID: 11658936 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. In re Drabick. Di Somma AV Issues Law Med; 1989; 4(4):519-24. PubMed ID: 11644377 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Nutritional discontinuation: active or passive euthanasia? Banja JD J Neurosurg Nurs; 1990 Apr; 22(2):117-20. PubMed ID: 11659424 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Withholding food and water from a patient--should it be condoned in California? Harber SM Pac Law J; 1985 Apr; 16(3):877-93. PubMed ID: 11652432 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Law Lords rule that Tony Bland does not create precedent. Dyer C BMJ; 1993 Feb; 306(6875):413-4. PubMed ID: 11643102 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. A comprehensive look at Connecticut's living will statute. Lieberson A Conn Probate Law J; 1992; 7(1):49-113. PubMed ID: 11653117 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. An overview of Georgia's living will legislation. Adams CR; Adams CT Mercer Law Rev; 1984; 36():45-75. PubMed ID: 11652443 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. United States--life support: one firm decision. Lancet; 1985 Jan; 1(8421):157. PubMed ID: 11644477 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Proxy decisionmaking for the terminally ill: the Virginia approach. O'Shaughnessy WJ Va Law Rev; 1984 Sep; 70(6):1269-302. PubMed ID: 11652483 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. The judge. Rymer R Hippocrates (Sausalito); 1988; 2(3):54-62. PubMed ID: 11650164 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Refusal of life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill incompetent patients: court orders and an alternative. Rubin BL Columbia J Law Soc Probl; 1985; 19(1):19-68. PubMed ID: 11658755 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]