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 *

315 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15212072)

  • 1. The right to privacy and assisted reproductive technologies: a comparative study of the law of Germany and the U.S.
    Voss AS
    N Y Law Sch J Int Comp Law; 2002; 21(2):229-305. PubMed ID: 15212072
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Can surrogate parenting be stopped? An inspection of the constitutional and pragmatic aspects of outlawing surrogate mother arrangements.
    Krimmel HT
    Valparaiso Univ Law Rev; 1992; 27(1):1-38. PubMed ID: 11652236
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Sexuality, privacy and the new biology.
    Smith GP; Iraola R
    Marquette Law Rev; 1984; 67(2):263-91. PubMed ID: 11658703
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Competing interests and gamete donation: the case for anonymity.
    Sauer JL
    Seton Hall Law Rev; 2009; 39(3):919-54. PubMed ID: 19650254
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The right to know one's genetic origin: can, should, or must a state that extends this right to adoptees extend an analogous right to children conceived with donor gametes?
    Chestney ES
    Tex Law Rev; 2001 Dec; 80(2):365-91. PubMed ID: 12680363
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reproductive technology and the procreation rights of the unmarried.
    Harv Law Rev; 1985 Jan; 98(3):669-85. PubMed ID: 11649801
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Conundrums with penumbras: the right to privacy encompasses non-gamete providers who create preembryos with the intent to become parents.
    Dillon LM
    Wash Law Rev; 2003 May; 78(2):625-51. PubMed ID: 15378817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reconceiving privacy: relationships and reproductive technology.
    Rao R
    UCLA Law Rev; 1998 Apr; 45(4):1077-123. PubMed ID: 11660817
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Parenthood by pure intention: assisted reproduction and the functional approach to parentage.
    Storrow RF
    Hastings Law J; 2002 Mar; 53(3):597-679. PubMed ID: 12680380
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Redefining mother: a legal matrix for new reproductive technologies.
    Stumpf AE
    Yale Law J; 1986 Nov; 96(1):187-208. PubMed ID: 11649792
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Privacy and the regulation of the new reproductive technologies: a decision-making approach.
    Sedillo Lopez A
    Fam Law Q; 1988; 22(2):173-97. PubMed ID: 16100818
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Modern reproductive technology and motherhood: the search for common ground and the recognition of difference.
    Birck ML
    Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1994; 62(4):1623-57. PubMed ID: 11660067
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. What does it mean to be a "parent"? The claims of biology as the basis for parental rights.
    Hill JL
    N Y Univ Law Rev; 1991 May; 66(2):353-420. PubMed ID: 11659546
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The constitutional implications of human cloning.
    Foley EP
    Ariz Law Rev; 2000; 42(3):647-730. PubMed ID: 15747441
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A primer on posthumous conception and related issues of assisted reproduction.
    Brenwald ML; Redeker K
    Washburn Law J; 1999; 38(2):599-654. PubMed ID: 12774811
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Privacy and assisted human reproduction: a discussion paper.
    Foster J; Slater B
    Health Law Rev; 2002; 11(1):56-61. PubMed ID: 15739319
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Beyond Jaffee v. Redmond: should the federal courts recognize a right to physician-patient confidentiality?
    Silver SA
    Ohio State Law J; 1998; 58(5):1809-66. PubMed ID: 16211748
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Matters of life and death: inheritance consequences of reproductive technologies.
    Shapo HS
    Hofstra Law Rev; 1997; 25(4):1091-220. PubMed ID: 11858286
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Surrogate motherhood: an argument for denial of specific performance.
    Suh MM
    Columbia J Law Soc Probl; 1989; 22(3):357-95. PubMed ID: 11650441
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Constitutional analysis of the Baby M decision.
    Stark B
    Harv Womens Law J; 1988; 11():19-52. PubMed ID: 16100827
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.