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.
173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11662827)
1. The right to choose an unproven method of treatment. Unan VA Loyola Los Angel Law Rev; 1979 Dec; 13(1):227-45. PubMed ID: 11662827 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. Just what the doctor ordered: the role of unconventional therapy in the treatment of cancer in minors. Grumet BR Fam Law Q; 1980; 14(2):63-98. PubMed ID: 11665187 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The right of privacy in choosing medical treatment: should terminally ill persons have access to drugs not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration? Power SH John Marshall Law Rev; 1987; 20(4):693-714. PubMed ID: 11650094 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The Laetrile controversy: background and issues. Eddy CH Ariz Law Rev; 1978; 20(3):825-60. PubMed ID: 11662772 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Legislative control of shock treatment. Moore E Univ San Francisco Law Rev; 1975; 9(4):738-77. PubMed ID: 11664532 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Laetrile wins one in federal court. Med World News; 1978 Aug; 19(16):25. PubMed ID: 11645367 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Laetrile: individual choice for cancer patients. Block RE Rev Law Soc Change; 1978; 7(2):313-34. PubMed ID: 11661706 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. State interference with personhood: the privacy right, necessity defense, and proscribed medical therapies. Stratton RT Pac Law J; 1979 Jul; 10(2):773-800. PubMed ID: 11661823 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Laetrile: should it be banned? Clark Me Newsweek; 1977 Jun; 89(26):48-53+. PubMed ID: 11661577 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. People v. Privitera. 29 Jan 1976. California. Superior Court, Appellate Department, Los Angeles County Wests Calif Report; 1976; 128():151-60. PubMed ID: 11645961 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Government regulation of health-care drugs of questionable efficacy. Milis RJ San Diego Law Rev; 1977 Mar; 14(2):378-413. PubMed ID: 11663726 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. What right to die? Rosen J New Repub; 1996 Jun; 214(26):28-31. PubMed ID: 11656670 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Rutherford v. United States. 19 Feb 1980. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Fed Report; 1980; 616():455-7. PubMed ID: 11645969 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]