260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11663726)
1. 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]
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. 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]
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. 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]
6. The Laetrile controversy: background and issues.
Eddy CH
Ariz Law Rev; 1978; 20(3):825-60. PubMed ID: 11662772
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Governmental regulation of heart transplantation and the right to privacy.
Merriken K; Overcast TD
J Contemp Law; 1985; 11(2):481-514. PubMed ID: 11656659
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Autonomy and privacy: protecting patients from their physicians.
Bobinski MA
Univ Pittsbg Law Rev; 1994; 55(2):291-388. PubMed ID: 11659957
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Laetrile wins one in federal court.
Med World News; 1978 Aug; 19(16):25. PubMed ID: 11645367
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A drug addict's right to anonymity.
DeSabato AA
Villanova Law Rev; 1975 Mar; 20(4):800-36. PubMed ID: 11664514
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. The legal status of the morning-after pill: abortion or birth control?
Saylor S
Univ San Francisco Law Rev; 1991; 25(2):401-27. PubMed ID: 11659519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Rutherford v. United States. 5 Dec 1977.
U.S. District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Fed Suppl; 1977; 438():1287-302. PubMed ID: 11645965
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
