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.
653 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11658804)
1. "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]
2. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn. Horan DJ; Balch BJ Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Disabled newborns and the federal child abuse amendments: tenuous protection. Smith SR Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):765-825. PubMed ID: 11655856 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Forgoing treatment of critically ill newborns and the legal legacy of Baby Doe. Nelson LJ Clin Ethics Rep; 1992; 6(2):1-6. PubMed ID: 11652072 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Born to live or born to die: the handicapped newborn in New Jersey. Sarno JJ Seton Hall Legis J; 1987; 11(1):201-22. PubMed ID: 11651899 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. What ever happened to Baby Jane...Doe? Jolly CM West State Univ Law Rev; 1987; 14(2):543-9. PubMed ID: 11651891 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe. Drinan RF America (NY); 1986 Mar; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Baby Doe's new guardians: federal policy brings nontreatment decisions out of hiding. Born MA KY Law J; 1986-1987; 75(3):659-75. PubMed ID: 11651897 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Bowen v. American Hospital Association: federal regulation is powerless to save Baby Doe. Cantrell DF Indiana Law Rev; 1986; 19(4):1199-218. PubMed ID: 11650766 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Baby Jane Doe: the ethical issues. Conley JJ America (NY); 1984 Feb; 150(5):84-9. PubMed ID: 11658402 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The legacy of Infant Doe. Cosby MG Bayl Law Rev; 1982; 34(4):699-715. PubMed ID: 11651747 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Life, death and the rights of handicapped babies. Schmeck HM N Y Times Web; 1985 Jun; ():C1, C3. PubMed ID: 11646493 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
17. 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]
18. Baby Doe cases: compromise and moral dilemma. Haddon PA Emory Law J; 1985; 34(3-4):545-615. PubMed ID: 11658790 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Baby Jane Doe. America (NY); 1983 Nov; 149(16):302-3. PubMed ID: 11658405 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The treatment of handicapped newborns: is there a role for law? Burt RA Issues Law Med; 1986 Jan; 1(4):279-91. PubMed ID: 11651814 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]