179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11656855)
1. Choices for a child: an ethical and legal analysis of a failed surrogate birth contract.
Marshall A
Univ Richmond Law Rev; 1996 Jan; 30(1):275-302. PubMed ID: 11656855
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Child abuse by whom? -- Parental rights and judicial competency determinations: the Baby K and Baby Terry cases.
Bopp J; Coleson RE
Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1994; 20(4):821-46. PubMed ID: 11652997
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Informed consent as a parent involvement model in the NICU.
Luckner KR; Weinfeld IJ
Bioethics Forum; 1995; 11(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 11653278
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Defective newborns: inconsistent application of legal principles emphasized by the Infant Doe case.
Baumgardner KL
Tex Tech Law Rev; 1983; 14(3):569-91. PubMed ID: 11651729
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Parents refuse to allow life-saving treatment for newborn: the right to choose.
Smith S
Princet J Bioeth; 1998; 1(1):58-60. PubMed ID: 11657338
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Ethical issues in pediatric surgery: a national survey of pediatricians and pediatric surgeons.
Shaw A; Randolph JG; Manard B
Pediatrics; 1977 Oct; 60(4-Part 2):588-99. PubMed ID: 11664868
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The Elin Daniels case: an examination of the legal, medical, and ethical considerations posed when parents and doctors disagree on whether to treat a defective newborn.
Portela C
Forum; 1983; 18(4):709-27. PubMed ID: 11658577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Treating defective newborns: the ethical dilemma.
Brant J; McNulty A
Human Rights; 1982; 10(3):34-36,45-47. PubMed ID: 11651708
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Model Procedures for Child Protective Service Agencies Responding to Reports of Withholding Medically Indicated Treatment from Disabled Infants with Life-Threatening Conditions.
Nicholson EB; Horowitz RM; Parry J; ;
Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1986; 10(3):221-49. PubMed ID: 11651933
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. When the neonate is defective.
Contemp Ob Gyn; 1976 Jun; 7(6):90-92+. PubMed ID: 11663000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Beyond state intervention in the family: for Baby Jane Doe.
Minow M
Univ Mich J Law Reform; 1985; 18(4):933-1014. PubMed ID: 11655183
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Whatever happened to the Danville Siamese twins?
Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1987 Aug; 17(4):3-4. PubMed ID: 11653782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Scottish inquiry vindicates decision not to resuscitate baby.
Dyer C
BMJ; 1997 Jul; 315(7099):9. PubMed ID: 11644952
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The ultimate parental nightmare: should our 'bad baby' live or die?
Lyon J
Washington Post; 1985 Feb; ():C1, C2. PubMed ID: 11646289
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. From the editors.
Kuhse H; Singer P
Bioethics; 1989 Oct; 3(4):iii-. PubMed ID: 11651959
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. "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]
18. Passive euthanasia of defective newborn infants: legal considerations.
Robertson JA; Fost N
J Pediatr Surg; 1976 May; 88(5):883-9. PubMed ID: 11662998
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The death of Infant Doe.
Verhey A
Reform J; 1982 Jun; 32(6):10-5. PubMed ID: 11651829
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Minors, medical treatment, and interspousal disagreement: should Solomon split the child?
Feigenbaum MS
De Paul Law Rev; 1992; 41(3):841-84. PubMed ID: 11659593
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
