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.
138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12194198)
1. New York state laws on protection of human subjects conflict with each other. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 1999 Nov; 14(11):7-8. PubMed ID: 12194198 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. State regulations on protecting mentally disabled research subjects are ruled invalid. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 1999 Oct; 14(10):4-5. PubMed ID: 11658062 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. State law on human research did not protect subjects' rights: T.D. v. New York State Office of Mental Health (Part I). Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 Jan; 15(1):7-8. PubMed ID: 11658037 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. New York State laws on protection of human subjects versus federal regulations: T.D. v. New York State Office of Mental Health (Part III). Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 1999 Dec; 14(12):7-8. PubMed ID: 11660760 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Research regulations on subjects' "capacity to give consent" were unconstitutional. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 Jun; 15(6):7-8. PubMed ID: 11917940 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Court said IRB had too much power to make consent decisions for minors. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 Jul; 15(7):7-8. PubMed ID: 12199227 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Court says state agency avoided usual way of reporting problems with human subjects: T.D. v. New York State Office of Mental Health (Part II). Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 Feb; 15(2):7-8. PubMed ID: 11660763 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Beyond Nuremberg: fifty years later, the debate continues on informed consent. Barnes PG ABA J; 1997 Mar; 83():24-7. PubMed ID: 11660466 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A considered approach to sterilization of mentally retarded youth. Perrin JC Am J Dis Child; 1976 Mar; 130(3):288-90. PubMed ID: 12085870 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Regulating research with vulnerable populations: litigation gone awry. Oldham JM; Haimowitz S; Delano SJ J Health Care Law Policy; 1998; 1(1):154-73. PubMed ID: 15573435 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Regulating research with decisionally impaired individuals: are we making progress? Hoffmann DE; Schwartz J; DeRenzo EG DePaul J Health Care Law; 2000; 3(3-4):547-608. PubMed ID: 16594106 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Informed consent for research is related to basic legal rights of all individuals. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 Mar; 15(3):7-8. PubMed ID: 12199224 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. State court says informed consent procedures were unacceptable. Maloney DM Hum Res Rep; 2000 May; 15(5):7-8. PubMed ID: 11917932 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Handicapped persons as research subjects. Bersoff DN Amicus; 1979; 4(3):133-40. PubMed ID: 11663096 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Fetal experimentation and federal regulation. Horan DJ Villanova Law Rev; 1977 Jan; 22(2):325-56. PubMed ID: 11664796 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Federal regulation of fetal research: toward a public policy founded onethical reasoning. Markey K Univ Miami Law Rev; 1977; 31(3):675-96. PubMed ID: 11664834 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The Willowbrook debate: concluded? Goldman L World Med; 1973 Oct; 9(2):79+. PubMed ID: 11664273 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Nontherapeutic research with children: the virtues and vices of legal uncertainty. Smolin DM Cumberland Law Rev; 2002-2003; 33(3):621-45. PubMed ID: 15378825 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]