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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12085919)

  • 1. Pap smears: physicians must disclose risk of refusal.
    Annas GJ
    Nurs Law Ethics; 1981 Jan; 2(1):3. PubMed ID: 12085919
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. California Supreme Court expands the informed consent doctine; physicians have a duty to obtain an informed refusal: Truman v. Thomas.
    Cluff CA
    Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1980; 1980(4):933-47. PubMed ID: 11655722
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Informed refusal: an unnecessary burden on physicians?
    Shank S
    UMKC Law Rev; 1981; 49(3):365-76. PubMed ID: 11658619
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Pap smears, prevention, primary care, and the guarantee of good health.
    Curran WJ
    Am J Public Health; 1981 Jun; 71(6):646-7. PubMed ID: 7235107
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. From informed consent to a duty to convince: Truman v. Thomas.
    Beller RL
    Houst Law Rev; 1981 May; 18(4):917-30. PubMed ID: 11649420
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Informed consent: from disclosure to patient participation in medical decisionmaking.
    Simpson RE
    Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1981 Mar; 76(1):172-207. PubMed ID: 11658361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Informed dissent: a new corollary to the informed consent doctrine?
    Friedman DA
    Chic Kent Law Rev; 1981; 57(4):1119-44. PubMed ID: 11658347
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Truman v. Thomas. 9 Jun 1980.
    California. Supreme Court
    Wests Calif Report; 1980; 165():308-18. PubMed ID: 11645975
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The doctrines of lack of consent and lack of informed consent in medical procedures in Louisiana.
    Boland GL
    LA Law Rev; 1983 Sep; 45(1):1-38. PubMed ID: 11658587
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Informed consent and the material risk standard: a modest proposal.
    Morton JE
    Pac Law J; 1981 Jul; 12(4):915-36. PubMed ID: 11658351
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The two schools of thought and informed consent doctrines in Pennsylvania: a model for integration.
    Dailey JP
    Dickinson Law Rev; 1994; 98(4):713-37. PubMed ID: 11656548
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Public psychiatry and the right to refuse treatment: toward an effective damage remedy.
    Furrow BR
    Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1984; 19(1):21-60. PubMed ID: 11658667
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Truman v. Thomas.
    California. Court of Appeal, Third District
    Wests Calif Report; 1979 May; 155():752-63. PubMed ID: 11648446
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The doctrine of informed consent: protecting the patient's right to make informed health care decisions.
    Studer MR
    Mont Law Rev; 1987; 48(1):85-100. PubMed ID: 11658939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cancer nursing and the law: informed refusal. Part IV.
    Gargaro WJ
    Cancer Nurs; 1980 Dec; 3(6):467-8. PubMed ID: 6903480
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Tort--informed consent--new directions for medical disclosure--Hopp v. Lepp and Reibl v. Hughes.
    Gochnauer M; Fleming DJ
    Univ B C Law Rev; 1981; 15(2):475-97. PubMed ID: 11658641
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Recent developments in medical negligence.
    Quest IM
    Int J Med Law; 1980; 1(4):483-91. PubMed ID: 11649434
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Informed consent for the terminal patient.
    Rutledge TA
    Bayl Law Rev; 1975; 27(1):111-21. PubMed ID: 11660876
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Emerging trends in the physician's duty to disclose: an update of Canterbury v. Spence.
    Knapp TA; Huff RL
    J Leg Med (N Y); 1975 Jan; 3(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 11643353
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Informed consent: Alabama announces a new standard for determining proximate cause.
    McFerrin JH
    Cumberland Law Rev; 1986-1987; 17(2):519-32. PubMed ID: 11658966
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.