341 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15378817)
1. 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]
2. Davis v. Davis: the applicability of privacy and property rights to the disposition of frozen preembryos in intrafamilial disputes.
Muller RJ
Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1993; 24(3):763-804. PubMed ID: 11659794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. My egg, your sperm, whose preembryo? A proposal for deciding which party receives custody of frozen preembryos.
Katz DA
Va J Soc Policy Law; 1998; 5(3):623-74. PubMed ID: 11979606
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Disputes over frozen preembryos and the "right not to be a parent".
Pachman TS
Columbia J Gend Law; 2003; 12(1):128-53. PubMed ID: 16281330
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Sign on the dotted line: enforceability of signed agreements, upon divorce of the married couple, concerning the disposition of their frozen preembryos.
Rosado M
New Engl Law Rev; 2002; 36(4):1041-75. PubMed ID: 15162814
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Parenthood, genes, and gametes: the family law and trusts and estates perspectives.
Cahn NR
Univ Memphis Law Rev; 2002; 32(3):563-606. PubMed ID: 16526142
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The Davis dilemma: how to prevent battles over frozen preembryos.
Panitch AR
Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1991; 41(2):543-79. PubMed ID: 16127877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The parent trap: uncovering the myth of "coerced parenthood" in frozen embryo disputes.
Waldman E
Am Univ Law Rev; 2004 Jun; 53(5):1021-62. PubMed ID: 15529471
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. In vitro fertilization and the right to procreate: the right to no.
Sieck WA
Univ PA Law Rev; 1998 Dec; 147(2):435-85. PubMed ID: 16514780
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Davis v. Davis: what about future disputes?
Feliciano T
Conn Law Rev; 1993; 26(1):305-53. PubMed ID: 11660034
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Prior agreements for disposition of frozen embryos.
Robertson JA
Ohio State Law J; 1990; 51(2):407-24. PubMed ID: 11652816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Frozen embryos: towards an equitable solution.
Trespalacios MJ
Univ Miami Law Rev; 1992 Jan; 46(3):803-34. PubMed ID: 16047447
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Parpalaix v. CECOS: Protecting Intent in Reproductive Technology.
Katz GA
Harv J Law Technol; 1998; 11(3):683-98. PubMed ID: 12731553
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. From a to z: analysis of Massachusetts' approach to the enforceability of cryopreserved pre-embryo dispositional agreements.
Kaplan S
Boston Univ Law Rev; 2001 Dec; 81(5):1093-118. PubMed ID: 12715818
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Halakhic approaches to the resolution of disputes concerning the disposition of preembryos.
Breitowitz YA
Tradition; 1996; 31(1):64-91. PubMed ID: 11654662
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Family law conundrums in assisted reproduction.
Waldman EA
Whittier Law Rev; 1999; 21(2):451-60. PubMed ID: 12199239
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. In-vitro fertilization, frozen embryos, and the right to privacy--are mandatory donation laws constitutional?
Schaefer K
Pac Law J; 1990 Oct; 22(1):87-121. PubMed ID: 16047419
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Reconciling property law with advances in reproductive science.
Brown B
Stanford Law Pol Rev; 1995; 6(2):73-88. PubMed ID: 11655141
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
