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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

426 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11653509)

  • 21. 'Baby Jane' ruling appealed by Justice.
    Barringer F
    Washington Post; 1983 Nov; ():A5. PubMed ID: 11646367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. "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]  

  • 23. 'Infant Doe': a hospital ethics committee can help.
    Capron AM
    Washington Post; 1983 Apr; ():A15. PubMed ID: 11646278
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The legacy of Infant Doe.
    Cosby MG
    Bayl Law Rev; 1982; 34(4):699-715. PubMed ID: 11651747
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Baby Jane Doe.
    America (NY); 1983 Nov; 149(16):302-3. PubMed ID: 11658405
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. If not that way, what way?
    America (NY); 1986 Jul; 155(2):21. PubMed ID: 11658787
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. U.S. seeks records of 'Baby Jane Doe'.
    Barringer F
    Washington Post; 1983 Nov; ():A1, A15. PubMed ID: 11646368
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Legal perspectives on institutional ethics committees.
    Capron AM
    J Coll Univ Law; 1985; 11(4):417-31. PubMed ID: 11651865
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Judge rejects U.S. role in 'Baby Doe' case.
    Barringer F
    Washington Post; 1983 Nov; ():A33. PubMed ID: 11646343
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Baby Doe's new guardians: federal policy brings nontreatment decisions out of hiding.
    Born MA
    KY Law J; 1986-1987; 75(3):659-75. PubMed ID: 11651897
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. U.S. lawyer concedes point in 'Doe' case.
    Barringer F
    Washington Post; 1983 Dec; ():A8. PubMed ID: 11646341
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The "Baby Doe" legislation: its rise and fall.
    Moss K
    Policy Stud J; 1987 Jun; 15(4):629-51. PubMed ID: 11651898
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.