129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11656008)
1. Forced obstetrical intervention: a charter analysis.
Grant I
Univ Tor Law J; 1989; 39(3):217-57. PubMed ID: 11656008
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Fetal rights and maternal rights: is there a conflict?
Rogers S
Can J Women Law; 1986; 1(2):456-69. PubMed ID: 11651100
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Medical choices during pregnancy: whose decision is it anyway?
Goldberg S
Rutgers Law Rev; 1989; 41(2):591-623. PubMed ID: 11649263
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Re Baby R: a comment on fetal apprehension.
Dawson TB
Can J Women Law; 1990; 4(1):265-75. PubMed ID: 11649295
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Prenatal invasions and interventions: what's wrong with fetal rights?
Gallagher J
Harv Womens Law J; 1987; 10():9-58. PubMed ID: 11649954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The maternal abdominal wall: a fortress against fetal health care?
Phelan JP
South Calif Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 65(1):461-90. PubMed ID: 11645842
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A new crime, fetal neglect: state intervention to protect the unborn--protection at what cost?
Manson R; Marolt J
Calif West Law Rev; 1987-1988; 24(1):161-82. PubMed ID: 11650070
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Abortion: law, religion and society.
Bube PC
Bioethics Forum; 1993; 9(1):12-8. PubMed ID: 11651641
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Mother v. her unborn child: where should Texas draw the line?
Locke NJ
Houst Law Rev; 1987 May; 24(3):549-76. PubMed ID: 11649225
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The Webster amicus curiae briefs: perspectives on the abortion controversy and the role of the Supreme Court -- amici for appellees.
Annas GJ
Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(2-3):169-203. PubMed ID: 11644396
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Lack of consent although informed: fetal neglect.
Reece SA; Reece EA
Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):130-44. PubMed ID: 11649199
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Court-ordered cesareans: a growing concern for indigent women.
Daniels JA
Clgh Rev; 1988 Feb; 21(9):1064-71. PubMed ID: 11649972
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. In re A.C.: a court-ordered cesarean becomes precedent for nonconsensual organ harvesting.
Sturgess RH
Nova Law Rev; 1989; 13(2):649-69. PubMed ID: 11650356
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Maternal-fetal ethical dilemmas: a guideline for physicians.
Miller FH
Semin Anesth; 1991 Sep; 10(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 11651353
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Forced cesarean sections: do the ends justify the means?
Drigotas EE
North Carol Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 70(1):297-321. PubMed ID: 11651652
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. On the legal status of the proposition that "life begins at conception.
Rubenfeld J
Stanford Law Rev; 1991 Feb; 43(3):599-635. PubMed ID: 11645689
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Courts acting to force care of the unborn.
Lewin T
N Y Times Web; 1987 Nov; ():A1, B10. PubMed ID: 11647835
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Colleges say no to forced caesarean sections.
Dyer C
BMJ; 1994 Jan; 308(6923):224. PubMed ID: 11644510
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Beyond abortion: refusal of caesarean section.
Mahowald M
Bioethics; 1989 Apr; 3(2):106-21. PubMed ID: 11649241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Controlling HIV-positive women's procreative destiny: a critical equal protection analysis.
Weiss JS
Const Law J; 1992; 2(2):643-718. PubMed ID: 11651626
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
