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.
170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15174442)
1. Cloning human organs: potential sources and property implications. Hilmert LJ Indiana Law J; 2002; 77(2):363-87. PubMed ID: 15174442 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Recommended response for human cloning patent applications. Nash D IDEA J Law Technol; 2002; 42(2):279-312. PubMed ID: 15732181 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Fragmented bodies, ideal privilege, and commodification in science and medicine. Perry MM Maine Law Rev; 1999; 51(1):169-210. PubMed ID: 12741402 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The constitutional implications of human cloning. Foley EP Ariz Law Rev; 2000; 42(3):647-730. PubMed ID: 15747441 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Rules for donations to tissue banks--what next? Glantz L; Roche P; Annas GJ N Engl J Med; 2008 Jan; 358(3):298-303. PubMed ID: 18199870 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Biotechnology patents under fire. Royzman I Nat Biotechnol; 2015 Sep; 33(9):925-6. PubMed ID: 26348959 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Presumed consent organ donation in Pennsylvania: one small step for Pennsylvania, one giant leap for organ donation. Wilcox SA Dickinson Law Rev; 2003; 107(4):935-51. PubMed ID: 15199934 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. "No compensation" or "pro compensation": Moore v. Regents and default rules for human tissue donations. Korobkin R J Health Law; 2007; 40(1):1-27. PubMed ID: 17549930 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Owning the secret of life: biotechnology and property rights revisited. Yelpaala K McGeorge Law Rev; 2000; 32(1):111-219. PubMed ID: 15709267 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Biotechnology: a challenge for Hippocrates. Huynen S Auckl Univ Law Rev; 1991; 6(4):534-51. PubMed ID: 16127862 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Forensic nursing implications for organ and tissue transplantation. Dougherty C Crit Care Nurs Q; 2008; 31(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 18574372 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Rethinking legislative consent law? Goodwin M DePaul J Health Care Law; 2002; 5(2):257-315. PubMed ID: 14696648 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Who deserves the patent pot of gold?: an inquiry into the proper inventorship of patient-based discoveries. Ho CM DePaul J Health Care Law; 2004; 7(2):185-243. PubMed ID: 15675072 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Body values: the case against compensating for transplant organs. Joralemon D; Cox P Hastings Cent Rep; 2003; 33(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 12613385 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biotechnology and the new property regime in human bodies and body parts. Nwabueze RN Loyola Los Angel Int Comp Law J; 2002 Jan; 24(1):19-64. PubMed ID: 12769112 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Active donor treatment needed for more organ transplantations]. Nossent GD; Aerdts SJ; Kirkels JH; van de Graaf EA; van Kessel DA; van den Bosch JM; Erasmus ME Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2009 Mar; 153(13):623-7. PubMed ID: 19408541 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The recognition of proprietary rights in human tissue in common law jurisdictions. Magnusson RS Melb Univ Law Rev; 1992 Jun; 18():601-29. PubMed ID: 16523581 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]