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.
573 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11664058)
1. Test tube babies: legal issues raised by in vitro fertilization. Flannery DM Georgetown Law J; 1979 Aug; 67(6):1295-345. PubMed ID: 11664058 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Legislative guidelines to govern in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Williams HE Santa Clara Law Rev; 1986; 26(2):495-518. PubMed ID: 11651873 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Model human reproduction technologies and surrogacy act. Abbas J Iowa Law Rev; 1987 May; 72(4):943-1013. PubMed ID: 11659499 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Artificial conception: legislative approaches. Krause HD Fam Law Q; 1985; 19(3):185-206. PubMed ID: 11658752 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The use of in vitro fertilization: is there a right to bear or beget a child by any available medical means? Eccles MR Pepperdine Law Rev; 1985; 12(4):1033-57. PubMed ID: 11655769 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Alternative means of reproduction: virgin territory for legislation. Lorio KV LA Law Rev; 1984 Jul; 44(6):1641-76. PubMed ID: 11658743 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The legal status of the embryo. Andrews LB Loyola Law Rev; 1986; 32(2):357-409. PubMed ID: 11658916 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Allocation of decision-making rights to frozen embryos. Poole EK Am J Fam Law; 1990; 4(1):67-102. PubMed ID: 11659329 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A medical advancement in search of a legal theory--artificial insemination by donor and the law. Baylson MM Semin Reprod Endocrinol; 1987 Feb; 5(1):69-80. PubMed ID: 11658912 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. State prohibition of fetal experimentation and the fundamental right of privacy. Clapp MJ Columbia Law Rev; 1988 Jun; 88(5):1073-97. PubMed ID: 11659043 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The new pro-life legislation: patterns and recommendations. Witherspoon JP St Marys Law J; 1976; 7(4):637-97. PubMed ID: 11664635 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Live birth: a condition precedent to recognition of rights. Crockett KG; Hyman M Hofstra Law Rev; 1976; 4(3):805-36. PubMed ID: 11664599 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Conceiving for cash; is it legal?: a survey of the laws applicable to surrogate motherhood. Taylor S N Y Law School Hum Rights Annu; 1987; 4(Part 2):413-44. PubMed ID: 11650203 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Predicting the future of privacy in pregnancy: how medical technology affects the legal rights of pregnant women. Annas GJ Nova Law Rev; 1989; 13(2):329-53. PubMed ID: 11650347 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Reproductive technology and the procreation rights of the unmarried. Harv Law Rev; 1985 Jan; 98(3):669-85. PubMed ID: 11649801 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Legal issues seen in Vatican call for laws to bar birth technology. Chambers M N Y Times Web; 1987 Mar; ():A1, B5. PubMed ID: 11647375 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Fetal research: a view from right to life to wrongful birth. Munson JW Chic Kent Law Rev; 1975; 52(1):133-56. PubMed ID: 11664521 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Restricting surrogacy to married couples: a constitutional problem? The married-parent requirement in the Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act. Massie AM Hastings Constit Law Q; 1991; 18(3):487-540. PubMed ID: 11651494 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Alternative birth technologies: legal challenges. Capron AM Univ Calif Davis Law Rev; 1987; 20(4):679-704. PubMed ID: 11659041 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]