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.
180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11657284)
1. Unauthorized embryo transfer at the University of California, Irvine Center for Reproductive Health. Kakkar S Hastings Constit Law Q; 1997; 24(4):1015-33. PubMed ID: 11657284 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Suffer the children: nostalgia, contradiction and the new reproductive technologies. Dolgin JL Ariz State Law J; 1996; 28(2):473-542. PubMed ID: 11657534 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Ethical dilemmas in reproductive medicine. Paine SJ; Moore PK; Hill DL Whittier Law Rev; 1996; 18(1):51-66. PubMed ID: 16273701 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Too many parents. Capron AM Hastings Cent Rep; 1998; 28(5):22-4. PubMed ID: 11656766 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Prior agreements for disposition of frozen embryos. Robertson JA Ohio State Law J; 1990; 51(2):407-24. PubMed ID: 11652816 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Embryo donation: unresolved legal issues in the transfer of surplus cryopreserved embryos. Kindregan CP; McBrien M Villanova Law Rev; 2004; 49(1):169-206. PubMed ID: 16485374 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Assisted reproductive technology and the family. Robertson JA Hastings Law J; 1996 Apr; 47(4):911-33. PubMed ID: 11656838 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Techniques of Assisted Reproduction: Act 35/1988. Spain Bol Of Estado Gac Madr Spain; 1988 Nov; No. 282():. PubMed ID: 12041504 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. My egg, your sperm, whose preembryo? A proposal for deciding which party receives custody of frozen preembryos. Katz DA Va J Soc Policy Law; 1998; 5(3):623-74. PubMed ID: 11979606 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Matters of life and death: inheritance consequences of reproductive technologies. Shapo HS Hofstra Law Rev; 1997; 25(4):1091-220. PubMed ID: 11858286 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Davis v. Davis: the applicability of privacy and property rights to the disposition of frozen preembryos in intrafamilial disputes. Muller RJ Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1993; 24(3):763-804. PubMed ID: 11659794 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. In vitro fertilization and the right to procreate: the right to no. Sieck WA Univ PA Law Rev; 1998 Dec; 147(2):435-85. PubMed ID: 16514780 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Medico-legal aspects of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer practice. Schenker JG; Frenkel DA Obstet Gynecol Surv; 1987 Jul; 41(7):405-13. PubMed ID: 11658938 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Confused heritage and the absurdity of genetic ownership. Silver LM; Silver SR Harv J Law Technol; 1998; 11(3):593-618. PubMed ID: 12731550 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Despite problems, physicians call embryo freezing 'medically attractive'. Brotman H Am Med News; 1985 Apr; 28(15):3, 17-18. PubMed ID: 11658539 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Halakhic approaches to the resolution of disputes concerning the disposition of preembryos. Breitowitz YA Tradition; 1996; 31(1):64-91. PubMed ID: 11654662 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Australian report dooms embryo 'heirs' but reprieve may follow public outcry. Miller C Med World News; 1984 Oct; 25(20):61-2. PubMed ID: 11645534 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Reproductive technology and stolen ova: who is the mother? Snyder RS Law Inequal; 1998; 16(1):289-334. PubMed ID: 11657333 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Ethics and embryos: did a renowned fertility doctor play God while he made babies? Cowley G Newsweek; 1995 Jun; 125(4):66-7. PubMed ID: 11660033 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The legal status of the embryo. Andrews LB Loyola Law Rev; 1986; 32(2):357-409. PubMed ID: 11658916 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]