723 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11659791)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. "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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. The legacy of Infant Doe.
Cosby MG
Bayl Law Rev; 1982; 34(4):699-715. PubMed ID: 11651747
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Medical ethics in life and death.
Thompson R
Editor Res Rep; 1984 Feb; 1(8):147-68. PubMed ID: 11652477
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Balancing wishes with wisdom: sustaining infant life.
Wakefield-Fisher M
Nurs Health Care; 1987 Nov; 8(9):517-20. PubMed ID: 11644099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Severely disabled newborns: to live or let die?
Jackson CC
J Leg Med; 1987 Mar; 8(1):135-76. PubMed ID: 11644153
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Recent governmental action regarding the treatment of seriously ill newborns.
Lawton SE; Carder EB; Weisman AW
J Coll Univ Law; 1985; 11(4):405-16. PubMed ID: 11651864
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The legacy of Baby Doe: five perspectives.
Ciulla JB
Psychol Today; 1987 Jan; 21(1):70-71, 74-75. PubMed ID: 11658812
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Baby Jane Doe: the ethical issues.
Conley JJ
America (NY); 1984 Feb; 150(5):84-9. PubMed ID: 11658402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
