218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11661827)
1. The judicial dilemma of Laetrile and a possible solution.
Pendergast WR
Mercer Law Rev; 1979; 30(3):573-84. PubMed ID: 11661827
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Laetrile: the battle moves into the courtroom.
Schwartz RL
Am Bar Assoc J; 1979 Feb; 65():224-8. PubMed ID: 11661617
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The uncertain application of the right of privacy in personal medical decisions: the Laetrile cases.
Christensen J
Ohio State Law J; 1981; 42(2):523-50. PubMed ID: 11649547
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Laetrile and the privacy right in decisional responsibility.
Volzer HJ
Med Trial Tech Q; 1980; 27(4):395-429. PubMed ID: 11662802
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Regulating Laetrile: constitutional and statutory implications.
Patton-Hulce VR
Univ Dayton Law Rev; 1980; 5(1):155-76. PubMed ID: 11661910
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Laetrile wins one in federal court.
Med World News; 1978 Aug; 19(16):25. PubMed ID: 11645367
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Drugs--Federal Drug Administration ban on Laetrile treatments for terminally ill cancer patients is arbitrary and capricious.
Bitting TH
Tulsa Law J; 1978; 14():222-5. PubMed ID: 11662799
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Laetrile, the continuing controversy.
Carbone A
Hosp Formul; 1978 Aug; 13(8):589-91. PubMed ID: 11645661
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. People v. Privitera: the right to prescribe and use Laetrile.
Brandt EK
West State Univ Law Rev; 1978; 5(2):201-229. PubMed ID: 11661590
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The Laetrile controversy: freedom of choice in medicines urged.
Link M
Congr Q Wkly Rep; 1977 Jul; 35(27):1346-8. PubMed ID: 11661613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Freedom of choice in medical treatment: reconsidering the efficacy requirement of the FDCA.
Clinite BJ
Loyola Univ Chic Law J; 1977; 9(1):205-26. PubMed ID: 11661566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Laetrile: may the state intervene on behalf of a minor?
Ainsworth MV; Wall T
Univ Kans Law Rev; 1982; 30(3):409-28. PubMed ID: 12083079
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. FDA treatment use regulations: a compassionate response.
Weitzman SA; Marcy T
AIDS Public Policy J; 1987; 2(2):22-32. PubMed ID: 11650028
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Private rights to adulterated/misbranded articles.
McMonagle L
AIDS Public Policy J; 1987; 2(2):33-49. PubMed ID: 11650029
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Laetrile: statutory and constitutional limitations on the regulation of ineffective drugs.
Univ PA Law Rev; 1978 Nov; 127(1):233-72. PubMed ID: 11661627
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The Laetrile controversy: background and issues.
Eddy CH
Ariz Law Rev; 1978; 20(3):825-60. PubMed ID: 11662772
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Supreme Court enters quarrel over Laetrile.
Mintz M
Washington Post; 1979 Jan; ():A1+. PubMed ID: 11648744
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Why Laetrile won't go away.
Edson L
N Y Times Mag; 1977 p 41+; 27 Nov 1977():. PubMed ID: 11662576
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Hands off Laetrile, judge orders FDA; appeal is expected.
Hogan G
Washington Post; 1977 Dec; ():A9. PubMed ID: 11648851
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Equitable access to biomedical advances: getting beyond the rights impasse.
Mariner WK
Conn Law Rev; 1989; 21(3):571-603. PubMed ID: 11650430
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
