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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12945448)

  • 1. Procreation and punishment.
    Dresser R
    Hastings Cent Rep; 2001; 31(6):8-9. PubMed ID: 12945448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Medicine, eugenics, and the Supreme Court: from coercive sterilization to reproductive freedom.
    Lombardo PA
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1996; 13(1):1-25. PubMed ID: 9068235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reproductive technology for procreation, experimentation, and profit. Protecting rights and setting limits.
    Garcia SA
    J Leg Med; 1990 Mar; 11(1):1-57. PubMed ID: 2277231
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Modern judicial treatment of procreative rights of developmentally disabled persons: equal rights to procreation and sterilization.
    Jaegers EM
    J Fam Law; 1992-1993 Fall; 31(4):947-79. PubMed ID: 11660196
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. From involuntary sterilization to genetic enhancement: the unsettled legacy of Buck v. Bell.
    Berry RM
    Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy; 1999; 12(2):401-48. PubMed ID: 12755089
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Coercive abortions and criminalizing the birth of children: some thoughts on the impact on women of State v. Oakley.
    Martin J
    West New Engl Law Rev; 2004; 26(1):67-80. PubMed ID: 16273700
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sterilization of the mentally retarded. The rules change but the results remain the same.
    Soskin RM
    Med Law; 1983; 2(3):267-76. PubMed ID: 6371426
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Eugenics and compulsory sterilization laws: providing redress for victims of a shameful era in United States history.
    Silver MG
    George Washington Law Rev; 2004 Apr; 72(4):862-92. PubMed ID: 16211742
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Involuntary sterilization of mentally disabled women.
    Cepko R
    Berkeley Womens Law J; 1993; 8():122-65. PubMed ID: 11659702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A shared history of shame: Sweden's four-decade policy of forced sterilization and the eugenics movement in the United States.
    Hyatt S
    Indiana Int Comp Law Rev; 1998; 8(2):475-503. PubMed ID: 16200697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Motes v. Hall County.
    Georgia. Supreme Court
    Rep Cases Decided Supreme Court State Ga Ga Supreme Court; 1983 Sep; 251():373-5. PubMed ID: 12041501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Wilson v. Kuenzi, 17 May 1988.
    United States. Missouri. Supreme Court
    Annu Rev Popul Law; 1988; 15():50. PubMed ID: 12289587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The biological alteration cases.
    Gelman S
    William Mary Law Rev; 1995 May; 36(4):1203-301. PubMed ID: 11660332
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Missouri overrules the United States Supreme Court on capital punishment for minors.
    Herbert PB; Meyers JR
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2004; 32(4):443-6. PubMed ID: 15704630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Class debates: reproductive, disability rights mix in KKK Act cases.
    Gibeaut J
    ABA J; 1997 Aug; 83():36-7. PubMed ID: 11660444
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. When terminating parental rights is not enough: a new look at compulsory sterilization.
    Blum ET
    Georgia Law Rev; 1994; 28(4):977-1017. PubMed ID: 11653343
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The right to procreate: the dilemma of overpopulation and the United States judiciary.
    Bolner J; Jacobsen R
    Loyola Law Rev; 1979; 25(2):235-62. PubMed ID: 11661912
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The long road of eugenics: from Rockefeller to Roe v. Wade.
    Messall R
    Hum Life Rev; 2004; 30(4):33-74. PubMed ID: 15856597
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The case: the "Ashley Treatment" revisited. Commentary: Who should take on the responsibility of decision making?
    Athanassoulis N
    Camb Q Healthc Ethics; 2010 Jul; 19(3):413-5. PubMed ID: 20507690
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The constitutionality of court-imposed birth control as a condition of probation.
    Lipton JP; Campbell CF
    N Y Law School Hum Rights Annu; 1989; 6(2):271-98. PubMed ID: 11652002
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.