BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

378 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14587492)

  • 1. Madness on trial.
    Cornwall J
    New Sci; 2003 Mar; 177(2386):27. PubMed ID: 14587492
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Forcible medication for courtroom competence--the case of Charles Sell.
    Annas GJ
    N Engl J Med; 2004 May; 350(22):2297-301. PubMed ID: 15163782
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Between madness and death: the medicate-to-execute controversy.
    Latzer B
    Crim Justice Ethics; 2003; 22(2):3-14. PubMed ID: 15080128
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Forced medication of defendants to achieve trial competency: an update on the law after Sell.
    Hilgers K; Ramer P
    Georget J Leg Ethics; 2004; 17(4):813-26. PubMed ID: 15685765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Constitutional law--substantive due process--Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that criminal defendant's best interests justify forcible medication.--Commonwealth v. Sam, 952 A.2d 565 (Pa. 2008).
    Harv Law Rev; 2009 May; 122(7):1961-8. PubMed ID: 19492499
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Trial rights and psychotropic drugs: the case against administering involuntary medications to a defendant during trial.
    Klein DW
    Vanderbilt Law Rev; 2002; 55(1):165-218. PubMed ID: 12680366
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Seeking an answer: questioning the validity of forcible medication to ensure mental competency of those condemned to die.
    Stricker BW
    McGeorge Law Rev; 2000; 32(1):317-40. PubMed ID: 15709265
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Restored to health to be put to death: reconciling the legal and ethical dilemmas of medicating to execute in Singleton v. Norris.
    Hensl KB
    Villanova Law Rev; 2004; 49(2):291-328. PubMed ID: 16485377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. "Mind control," "synthetic sanity," "artificial competence," and genuine confusion: legally relevant effects of antipsychotic medication.
    Gutheil TG; Appelbaum PS
    Hofstra Law Rev; 1983; 12(1):77-120. PubMed ID: 15739272
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Sell v. U.S.: involuntary treatment case or catalyst for change?
    Leong GB
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(3):292-4. PubMed ID: 16186189
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Of pills and needs: involuntarily medicating the psychotic inmate when execution looms.
    Cantor JD
    Indiana Health Law Rev; 2005; 2(1):117-70. PubMed ID: 17111502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. State can make inmate sane enough to execute.
    Liptak A
    N Y Times Web; 2003 Feb; ():A1, A27. PubMed ID: 12812158
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Psychotropic medication in the criminal trial process: the constitutional and therapeutic implications of Riggins v. Nevada.
    Winick BJ
    N Y Law Sch J Hum Rights; 1993; 10(Part 3):637-709. PubMed ID: 16708427
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A healer or an executioner? The proper role of a psychiatrist in a criminal justice system.
    Dolin G
    J Law Health; 2002-2003; 17(2):169-216. PubMed ID: 15853125
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Justices let stand ruling that allows forcibly drugging an inmate before execution.
    Lewis NA
    N Y Times Web; 2003 Oct; ():A16. PubMed ID: 14610765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Medication of criminal defendants.
    Westreich LM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2001; 29(4):504. PubMed ID: 11785623
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Presumed dangerous: California's selective policy of forcibly medicating state prisoners with antipsychotic drugs.
    Gross DE
    Univ Calif Davis Law Rev; 2002 Jan; 35():483-517. PubMed ID: 17066562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mental health advance directives: having one's say?
    Dunlap JA
    KY Law J; 2000; 89(2):327-86. PubMed ID: 12737165
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Criminal madness: cultural iconography and insanity.
    Covey RD
    Stanford Law Rev; 2009 Apr; 61(6):1375-428. PubMed ID: 19489183
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.