196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12199233)
1. Reproductive technology comes of age.
Andrews LB
Whittier Law Rev; 1999; 21(2):375-89. PubMed ID: 12199233
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Matters of life and death: inheritance consequences of reproductive technologies.
Shapo HS
Hofstra Law Rev; 1997; 25(4):1091-220. PubMed ID: 11858286
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. New methods of conception and their legal status.
Pilpel HF
N Y Law School Hum Rights Annu; 1985; 3():13-33. PubMed ID: 16100809
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The ever-widening gap between the science of artificial reproductive technology and the laws which govern that technology.
Havins WE; Dalessio JJ
De Paul Law Rev; 1999; 48(4):825-66. PubMed ID: 12484397
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Switched at the fertility clinic: determining maternal rights when a child is born from stolen or misdelivered genetic material.
Noble-Allgire AM
Miss Law Rev; 1999; 64(3):517-94. PubMed ID: 16523582
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Privacy and the regulation of the new reproductive technologies: a decision-making approach.
Sedillo Lopez A
Fam Law Q; 1988; 22(2):173-97. PubMed ID: 16100818
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Guarantors of our genes: are egg donors liable for latent genetic disease?
Jayanti SE
Am Univ Law Rev; 2008 Dec; 58(2):405-57. PubMed ID: 20222215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. The birds, the bees, and the deep freeze: is there international consensus in the debate over assisted reproductive technologies?
Pitrolo EA
Houst J Int Law; 1996; 19(1):147-206. PubMed ID: 12666682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assisted reproductive technologies and the pitfalls of unregulated biomedical innovation.
Noah L
Fla Law Rev; 2003 Apr; 55(2):603-65. PubMed ID: 15212032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Ethical dilemmas in reproductive medicine.
Paine SJ; Moore PK; Hill DL
Whittier Law Rev; 1996; 18(1):51-66. PubMed ID: 16273701
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Regulation of assisted reproductive technology in the Netherlands.
te Braake TA
Tex Int Law J; 2000; 35(1):93-122. PubMed ID: 12656080
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Reconceiving privacy: relationships and reproductive technology.
Rao R
UCLA Law Rev; 1998 Apr; 45(4):1077-123. PubMed ID: 11660817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. In vitro fertilization and consent agreements: where does California stand?
Ellis M
Santa Clara Law Rev; 2002; 42(4):1191-225. PubMed ID: 15212074
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Christian doctors approve in vitro fertilization.
Spring B
Christ Today; 1990 Jun; 34(9):56-7. PubMed ID: 11654153
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. President's Council on Bioethics: reproduction and responsibility.
Doerflinger RM
Natl Cathol Bioeth Q; 2004; 4(3):461-9. PubMed ID: 15452926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Disputing over embryos: of contracts and consents.
Waldman EA
Ariz State Law J; 2000; 32(3):897-940. PubMed ID: 12769122
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Legal aspects of ART practice in Israel.
Schenker JG
J Assist Reprod Genet; 2003 Jul; 20(7):250-9. PubMed ID: 12921263
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. From Baby M. to Jaycee B.: fathers, mothers, and children in the brave new world.
Hale JV
J Contemp Law; 1998; 24(2):335-75. PubMed ID: 12465647
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Redefining parenthood.
Halperin-Kaddari R
Calif West Int Law J; 1999; 29(2):313-37. PubMed ID: 12611404
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Confused heritage and the absurdity of genetic ownership.
Silver LM; Silver SR
Harv J Law Technol; 1998; 11(3):593-618. PubMed ID: 12731550
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
