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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14983883)

  • 1. Human rights, reproductive freedom, medicine and the law.
    McLean SA; Ramsey J
    Med Law Int; 2002; 5(4):239-58. PubMed ID: 14983883
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Women's rights versus the protection of fetuses.
    Warren MA
    Midwest Med Ethics; 1991; 7(1):1, 3-7. PubMed ID: 16145788
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The colonization of the womb.
    Ehrenreich N
    Duke Law J; 1993 Dec; 43(3):492-587. PubMed ID: 10131480
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reply to Sarah Burns.
    Colker R
    Harv Womens Law J; 1990; 13():207-14. PubMed ID: 16032808
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Court-ordered cesareans: can a pregnant woman refuse?
    Leavine BA
    Houst Law Rev; 1992; 29(1):185-218. PubMed ID: 11656666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Forced obstetrical intervention: a charter analysis.
    Grant I
    Univ Tor Law J; 1989; 39(3):217-57. PubMed ID: 11656008
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Judicial intervention in pregnancy.
    Martin S; Coleman M
    McGill Law J; 1995 Aug; 40(4):947-91. PubMed ID: 11654475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Contemporary transatlantic developments concerning compelled medical treatment of pregnant women.
    Rossiter GP
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1995 May; 35(2):132-8. PubMed ID: 7677674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Prenatal invasions and interventions: what's wrong with fetal rights?
    Gallagher J
    Harv Womens Law J; 1987; 10():9-58. PubMed ID: 11649954
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Re Baby R: a comment on fetal apprehension.
    Dawson TB
    Can J Women Law; 1990; 4(1):265-75. PubMed ID: 11649295
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Colleges say no to forced caesarean sections.
    Dyer C
    BMJ; 1994 Jan; 308(6923):224. PubMed ID: 11644510
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An Orwellian scenario: court ordered caesarean section and women's autonomy.
    Cahill H
    Nurs Ethics; 1999 Nov; 6(6):494-505. PubMed ID: 10696195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Prenatal v. parental rights: what a difference an "a" makes.
    Gallagher A
    St Marys Law J; 1989; 21(2):301-24. PubMed ID: 16100799
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Regulating women's bodies: the adverse effect of fetal rights theory on childbirth decisions and women of color.
    Krauss DJ
    Harv Civ Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev; 1991; 26(2):523-47. PubMed ID: 11652068
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Power and procreation: state interference in pregnancy.
    Hanigsberg JE
    Ottawa Law Rev; 1991; 23(1):35-70. PubMed ID: 11656189
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mother v fetus: who wins?
    Newnham H
    Aust J Midwifery; 2003 Mar; 16(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 12858480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Who gets to choose? Responses to the foetal/maternal conflict.
    Hyams R
    E Law; 1995 Dec; 2(3):E7. PubMed ID: 16969923
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cesareans and Samaritans.
    Rhoden NK
    Law Med Health Care; 1987; 15(3):118-25. PubMed ID: 3695574
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The fetus and the law--whose life is it anyway?
    Gallagher J
    Ms; 1984 Sep; 13(3):62, 64, 66+. PubMed ID: 11655606
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A pregnant woman's decision to decline treatment: how should the law respond?
    Seymour J
    J Law Med; 1994 Aug; 2(1):27-37. PubMed ID: 11660250
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.