444 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11658577)
1. 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]
2. On letting some babies die.
Smith DH
Stud Hastings Cent; 1974 May; 2(2):37-46. PubMed ID: 11661065
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Suit filed in Oklahoma alleging twenty-four infants died after being denied beneficial medical treatment.
Paulus SM
Issues Law Med; 1986 Jan; 1(4):321-30. PubMed ID: 11651816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Withholding treatment from defective newborns: who decides and on what criteria?
Longino PH
Univ Kans Law Rev; 1983; 31(3):377-407. PubMed ID: 11658479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Quality of life, sanctity of creation: palliative or apotheosis?
Smith GP
Neb Law Rev; 1984; 63(4):709-40. PubMed ID: 11652479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Treatment dilemmas for imperiled newborns: why quality of life counts.
Rhoden NK
South Calif Law Rev; 1985 Sep; 58(6):1283-347. PubMed ID: 11660412
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Parents refuse to allow life-saving treatment for newborn: our moral obligation.
Otten M
Princet J Bioeth; 1998; 1(1):61-4. PubMed ID: 11657340
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The new neonatal dilemma: live births from late abortions.
Rhoden NK
Georgetown Law J; 1984 Jun; 72(5):1451-509. PubMed ID: 11658578
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Of diagnoses and discrimination: discriminatory nontreatment of infants with HIV infection.
Crossley MA
Columbia Law Rev; 1993 Nov; 93(7):1581-667. PubMed ID: 11659791
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The sanctity of life, the quality of life and the new 'Baby Doe' law.
Johnstone BV
Linacre Q; 1985 Aug; 52(3):258-70. PubMed ID: 11649728
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Baby Jane Doe: the ethical issues.
Conley JJ
America (NY); 1984 Feb; 150(5):84-9. PubMed ID: 11658402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Infant care review committees: their moral responsibilities.
Barry RL
Linacre Q; 1985 Nov; 52(4):361-74. PubMed ID: 11651843
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Withdrawal of life-support in the newborn: whose baby is it?
Clark FI
Southwest Univ Law Rev; 1993; 23(1):1-46. PubMed ID: 11659817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Joining in life and death: on separating the Lakeberg twins.
Dougherty CJ
Bioethics Forum; 1995; 11(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 11653280
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Delivery room resuscitation of the high-risk infant: a conflict of rights.
Cooper R
Cathol Lawyer; 1990; 33(4):325-60. PubMed ID: 11659422
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Infant care review committees: an effective approach to the Baby Doe dilemma?
Shapiro RS; Barthel R
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):827-62. PubMed ID: 11655857
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Siamese twins, focus of ethical debate, are separated.
Ob Gyn News; 1982 Oct 15-31; 17(20):7. PubMed ID: 11655561
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
