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.
202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12625315)
1. In re Marriage of Buzzanca: charting a new destiny. O'Hara MD; Vorzimer AW West State Univ Law Rev; 1998-1999; 26():25-45. PubMed ID: 12625315 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Cryopreserved embryos: a response to "forced parenthood" and the role of intent. Apel SB Fam Law Q; 2005; 39(3):663-81. PubMed ID: 16610152 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Parpalaix v. CECOS: Protecting Intent in Reproductive Technology. Katz GA Harv J Law Technol; 1998; 11(3):683-98. PubMed ID: 12731553 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Assisted reproductive technologies: contracts, consents, and controversies. Elster NR Am J Fam Law; 2005; 18(4):193-9. PubMed ID: 17153245 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. In re marriage of Buzzanca: trial court analysis. Monarch RD West State Univ Law Rev; 1998-1999; 26():1-24. PubMed ID: 12953669 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Too many parents. Capron AM Hastings Cent Rep; 1998; 28(5):22-4. PubMed ID: 11656766 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Suffer the children: nostalgia, contradiction and the new reproductive technologies. Dolgin JL Ariz State Law J; 1996; 28(2):473-542. PubMed ID: 11657534 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Conundrums with penumbras: the right to privacy encompasses non-gamete providers who create preembryos with the intent to become parents. Dillon LM Wash Law Rev; 2003 May; 78(2):625-51. PubMed ID: 15378817 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A primer on posthumous conception and related issues of assisted reproduction. Brenwald ML; Redeker K Washburn Law J; 1999; 38(2):599-654. PubMed ID: 12774811 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Meeting the needs of children of assisted conception. Jaeger AS Am J Fam Law; 2000; 14(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 12449981 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Reproductive capacity: what does the embryo get? Stephens KU South Univ Law Rev; 1997; 24(2):263-91. PubMed ID: 16528857 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Fathering a child from the grave: what are the inheritance rights of children born through new technology after the death of a parent? VanCannon K Drake Law Rev; 2004; 52(2):331-62. PubMed ID: 16755696 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Where does a man stand on issues of assisted reproduction, surrogacy, artificial insemination within lesbian relationships and posthumous conception? Beem P Aust J Fam Law; 2004 Apr; 18(1):41-62. PubMed ID: 17058336 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Who are the parents of biotechnological children? Palmer LI Jurimetrics; 1994; 35(1):17-29. PubMed ID: 11660334 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]