155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12776374)
1. A two pronged test for surgical decision-making in the cognitively impaired patient.
Lattanzi C
HEC Forum; 2003 Mar; 15(1):5-20. PubMed ID: 12776374
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Refusal of medical treatment: taking respect for the person seriously.
Gochnauer M
Can J Law Soc; 1987; 2():121-40. PubMed ID: 16100805
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Adolescent competency and the refusal of medical treatment.
Harvey MT
Health Matrix Clevel; 2003; 13(2):297-323. PubMed ID: 15027423
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Confusion in right to die ideology: impact of ethical decision making for treatment of an incompetent client.
Harner SR
Georget J Leg Ethics; 1991; 4(4):869-98. PubMed ID: 12186076
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Toward a pure best interests model of proxy decision making for incompetent psychiatric patients.
McCubbin M; Weisstub DN
Int J Law Psychiatry; 1998; 21(1):1-30. PubMed ID: 9526712
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Exploring the gray areas of informed consent.
Dunn D
Nurs Manage; 2000 Jul; 31(7):20-5; quiz 25-6. PubMed ID: 15127502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Changing the law on decision making for mentally incapacitated adults.
Gadd E
BMJ; 1998 Jan; 316(7125):90. PubMed ID: 9462308
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. End stage anorexia: criteria for competence to refuse treatment.
Gans M; Gunn WB
Int J Law Psychiatry; 2003; 26(6):677-95. PubMed ID: 14637208
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Who decides--the patient, the physician or the rabbi?
Glick SM
Assia Jew Med Ethics; 2004 Sep; 4(2):20-30. PubMed ID: 15573424
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Separation of the conjoined twins: a comparative analysis of the rights to privacy and religious freedom in Great Britain and the United States.
Tomasso JB
Rutgers Law Rev; 2002; 54(3):771-801. PubMed ID: 15233129
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Listening to the disabled: end-of-life medical decision making and the never competent.
Miller EC
Fordham Law Rev; 2006 Apr; 74(5):2889-925. PubMed ID: 17115482
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Old law meets new medicine: revisiting involuntary psychotropic medication of the criminal defendant.
Siegel DM; Grudzinskas AJ; Pinals DA
Wis L Rev; 2001; 2():307-80. PubMed ID: 16281337
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Preserving patient dignity when surrogates step in.
Gold MF
Provider; 2004 Jul; 30(7):28-9, 31-2, 35-7 passim. PubMed ID: 15354549
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Dissolving the dilemma over forced treatment.
Ravitsky V; Wendler D
Lancet; 2005 Apr 30-May 6; 365(9470):1525-6. PubMed ID: 15866294
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Commentary: the search for a formula to relate competence, coercion, and mandated treatment.
Grudzinskas AJ
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2002; 30(2):218-20. PubMed ID: 12108558
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The right to die.
Powell JA; Cohen AS
Issues Law Med; 1994; 10(2):169-82. PubMed ID: 7960664
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. In re Guardianship of Ingram.
Paulus SM
Issues Law Med; 1985 Nov; 1(3):243-6. PubMed ID: 11644500
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Adolescent autonomy, detention for medical treatment and Re C.
de Cruz P
Mod Law Rev; 1999 Jul; 62(4):595-604. PubMed ID: 12774789
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Forcible medication and personal autonomy: the case of Charles Thomas Sell.
Quinlan M
Spec Law Dig Health Care Law; 2005 Mar; (311):9-33. PubMed ID: 15869037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Decisions by and for people with mental retardation: balancing considerations of autonomy and protection.
Ellis JW
Villanova Law Rev; 1992; 37(6):1779-809. PubMed ID: 11654415
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
