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.
136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11657154)
1. Medical treatment (child): parental refusal and role of the court -- Re T (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment). Grubb A Med Law Rev; 1996; 4(3):315-9. PubMed ID: 11657154 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. In whose best interests? Fox M; McHale J Mod Law Rev; 1997 Sep; 60(5):700-9. PubMed ID: 11657504 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. UK court upholds parents' decision to stop child's surgery. Brahams D Lancet; 1996 Nov; 348(9036):1236. PubMed ID: 11654465 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment). Great Britain. England. Court of Appeal, Civil Division All Engl Law Rep; 1981 Aug; [1990] 3():927-30. PubMed ID: 11648312 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Selective non-treatment of the newborn: in whose best interests? In whose judgment? Davies M North Irel Leg Q; 1998; 49(1):82-93. PubMed ID: 16200695 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The outer limits of parental autonomy: withholding medical treatment from children. Vorys YV Ohio State Law J; 1981; 43(3):813-29. PubMed ID: 11658709 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. June 8, 1982, letter of Judge John Baker to Anonymous Person. Baker JG Issues Law Med; 1986 Jul; 2(1):81-3. PubMed ID: 11644060 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Custody of a Minor. Massachusetts. Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk North East Rep Second Ser; 1982 Apr; 434():601-11. PubMed ID: 12041208 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Parents seek right to allow boy in UK to die. Brahams D Lancet; 1995 Aug; 346(8971):368. PubMed ID: 11653128 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Re J (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment). Great Britain. England. Court of Appeal, Civil Division All Engl Law Rep; 1990 Oct; [1990] 3():930-45. PubMed ID: 11648249 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Trial court decision in Houle case. Maine. Superior Court, Cumberland Issues Law Med; 1986 Nov; 2(3):237-9. PubMed ID: 11644065 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Last rights: an analysis of refusal and withholding of treatment cases. Brant J Miss Law Rev; 1981; 46(2):337-70. PubMed ID: 11651657 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Law, medicine, and morality: the cases of Infant Doe and Pamela Hamilton. Klinefelter D J Law Relig; 1984; 2(2):413-27. PubMed ID: 11651848 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. British judges cannot order doctors to treat. Kessel R Hastings Cent Rep; 1992; 22(4):3-4. PubMed ID: 11643015 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Nat Hentoff on the babies Doe. McFadden JP; Hentoff N Hum Life Rev; 1984; 10(2):73-104. PubMed ID: 11651744 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The plight of the genetically handicapped newborn: a comparative analysis. Smith GP Holdsworth Law Rev; 1984; 9(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 12091924 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]