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.
139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1459844)
1. Federal policy on forgoing treatment or care: contradictions or consistency? Uddo BJ Issues Law Med; 1992; 8(3):293-308. PubMed ID: 1459844 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Baby Doe: nothing to fear but fear itself. Barnett TJ J Perinatol; 1990 Sep; 10(3):307-11. PubMed ID: 2145405 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The federal role in protecting Babies Doe. Gerry MH; Nimz M Issues Law Med; 1987 Mar; 2(5):339-77. PubMed ID: 2954927 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. AIDS babies, crack babies: challenges to the law. Bopp J; Gardner DH Issues Law Med; 1991; 7(1):3-51. PubMed ID: 1830296 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Recent developments in the law governing medical treatment for older people and people with disabilities. National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled Clgh Rev; 1988 May; 22(1):31-42. PubMed ID: 11652540 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The Baby Doe regulations: views from perinatal social workers. York GY; Gallarno RM J Perinatol; 1990 Sep; 10(3):312-6. PubMed ID: 2145406 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Protecting the right to die: the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990. Mulholland KC Harvard J Legis; 1991; 28(2):609-30. PubMed ID: 11651225 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Supreme Court asked to review application of Rehabilitation Act to medical decisions. Paulus SM Issues Law Med; 1985 Jul; 1(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 2931399 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Bowen v. American Hospital Association. Paulus SM Issues Law Med; 1986 Sep; 2(2):159-67. PubMed ID: 2945799 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Baby Doe, Congress and the states: challenging the federal treatment standard for impaired infants. Newman SA Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(1):1-60. PubMed ID: 2764010 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe. Drinan RF America (NY); 1986 Mar; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Bowen v. American Hospital Association: federal regulation is powerless to save Baby Doe. Cantrell DF Indiana Law Rev; 1986; 19(4):1199-218. PubMed ID: 11650766 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Baby Doe's new guardians: federal policy brings nontreatment decisions out of hiding. Born MA KY Law J; 1986-1987; 75(3):659-75. PubMed ID: 11651897 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Medical treatment for older people and people with disabilities: 1986 developments. National Legal Center Staff. Issues Law Med; 1987 Jan; 2(4):255-76. PubMed ID: 2951349 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The legal response to Babies Doe: an analytical prognosis. Rosenblum VG; Grant ER Issues Law Med; 1986 Mar; 1(5):391-404. PubMed ID: 3636287 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission report, "Medical discrimination against children with disabilities": a brief commentary. Tucker BP Issues Law Med; 1990; 6(3):269-84. PubMed ID: 2149130 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Health care professionals and treatment of HIV-positive patients. Is there an affirmative duty to treat under common law, the Rehabilitation Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act? White CC J Leg Med; 1999 Mar; 20(1):67-113. PubMed ID: 10230151 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]