BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14968679)

  • 1. Supreme Court limits permissible scope of government's ability to force medication of mentally ill defendants.
    Prieto-Gonzalez M
    J Law Med Ethics; 2003; 31(4):737-9. PubMed ID: 14968679
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Forcible medication and personal autonomy: the case of Charles Thomas Sell.
    Quinlan M
    Boston Univ Law Rev; 2004 Feb; 84(1):275-99. PubMed ID: 16211756
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The Sell effect: involuntary medication treatment is a "clear and convincing" success.
    Cochrane RE; Herbel BL; Reardon ML; Lloyd KP
    Law Hum Behav; 2013 Apr; 37(2):107-16. PubMed ID: 22746284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sell v. U.S.: involuntary medication to restore trial competency--a workable standard?
    Gerbasi JB; Scott CL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2004; 32(1):83-90. PubMed ID: 15497635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The Connecticut Experience with
    Norko MA; Cotterell MS; Hollis T
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2020 Dec; 48(4):473-483. PubMed ID: 32675332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Decoding right to refuse treatment law.
    Perlin ML
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 1993; 16(1-2):151-77. PubMed ID: 8099069
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reevaluating substantive due process as a source of protection for psychiatric patients to refuse drugs.
    Brooks WM
    Indiana Law Rev; 1998; 31(4):937-1017. PubMed ID: 15386905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Washington v. Harper: prisoners' rights to refuse antipsychotic medication.
    Appelbaum PS
    Hosp Community Psychiatry; 1990 Jul; 41(7):731-2. PubMed ID: 1973135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.