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.
2. Patient autonomy and biomedical research: judicial compromise in Moore v. Regents of the University of California. LoBiondo AR Albany Law J Sci Technol; 1991; 1():277-305. PubMed ID: 16281328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Biotechnology: a challenge for Hippocrates. Huynen S Auckl Univ Law Rev; 1991; 6(4):534-51. PubMed ID: 16127862 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A question of property rights in the human body. Marusyk RW; Swain MS Ottawa Law Rev; 1989; 21(2):351-86. PubMed ID: 16086463 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: patients, property rights, and public policy. Biagi KG St Louis Univ Law J; 1991; 35(2):433-62. PubMed ID: 16144099 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Body ownership and research. McWhirter RE; Nicol D; Chalmers D; Dickinson JL J Law Med; 2013 Dec; 21(2):323-9. PubMed ID: 24597380 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Laboratory specimens and genetic privacy: evolution of legal theory. Lewis MH J Law Med Ethics; 2013 Mar; 41 Suppl 1():65-8. PubMed ID: 23590744 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Proprietary rights in body parts: the relevance of Moore's case in Australia. Mortimer D Monash Univ Law Rev; 1993; 19(1):217-25. PubMed ID: 17333577 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Living tissue and organ donors and property law: more on Moore. Dickens BM J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1992; 8():73-93. PubMed ID: 10183665 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The application of traditional criminal law to misappropriation of gametic materials. Ayala K Am J Crim Law; 1997; 24(3):503-39. PubMed ID: 16086480 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Examining disputes over ownership rights to frozen embryos: will prior consent documents survive if challenged by state law and/or constitutional principles? Sheinbach DM Cathol Univers Law Rev; 1999; 48(3):989-1027. PubMed ID: 12611403 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Moore 10 years later--still trying to fill the gap: creating a personal property right in genetic material. Seeney EB New Engl Law Rev; 1998; 32(4):1131-91. PubMed ID: 12778925 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Misappropriation of human eggs and embryos and the tort of conversion: a relational view. Fischer JD Loyola Los Angel Law Rev; 1999 Jan; 32(2):381-429. PubMed ID: 12455505 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The organ trail: express versus presumed consent as paths to blaze in solving a critical shortage. Morris ED Spec Law Dig Health Care Law; 2003 Nov; (295):9-34. PubMed ID: 14719372 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. From Cosmos and Damian to Van Velzen: the human tissue saga continues. Price D Med Law Rev; 2003; 11(1):1-47. PubMed ID: 14606471 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Making something into nothing: reforming the "no property" rule for human tissue. Rolf N J Law Med; 2013 Dec; 21(2):312-22. PubMed ID: 24597379 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Sperm, egg, and a petri dish. Unveiling the underlying property issues surrounding cryopreserved embryos. Langley LS; Blackston JW J Leg Med; 2006 Jun; 27(2):167-206. PubMed ID: 16728352 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Patenting life: a view from the constitution and beyond. Schneider CA; Cohn F; Bonner C Whittier Law Rev; 2002; 24(2):385-416. PubMed ID: 15085853 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]