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.
341 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15378817)
21. Too many parents. Capron AM Hastings Cent Rep; 1998; 28(5):22-4. PubMed ID: 11656766 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. J.B. v. M.B. New Jersey. Supreme Court Wests Atl Report; 2001; 783():707-20. PubMed ID: 16285109 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Deciding custody of frozen embryos: many eggs are frozen but who is chosen? Malo PE DePaul J Health Care Law; 1999-2000; 3():307-34. PubMed ID: 15929238 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. In vitro fertilization: eliminating the current state of limbo between pre-embryonic rights and the fundamental right to procreate. Langley DB Wake Forest Law Rev; 1991; 26(4):1217-43. PubMed ID: 11659618 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. In vitro fertilization and consent agreements: where does California stand? Ellis M Santa Clara Law Rev; 2002; 42(4):1191-225. PubMed ID: 15212074 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The legal dimensions of in vitro fertilization: cryopreserved embryos frozen in legal limbo. Cuva AJ N Y Law Sch J Hum Rights; 1991; 8(part 2):383-414. PubMed ID: 16144101 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Dealing with cryopreserved embryos upon divorce: a contractual approach aimed at preserving party expectations. Petersen SD UCLA Law Rev; 2003 Apr; 50(4):1065-93. PubMed ID: 15378819 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Moore 10 years later--still trying to fill the gap: creating a personal property right in genetic material. Seeney EB New Engl Law Rev; 1998; 32(4):1131-91. PubMed ID: 12778925 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Cryopreserved embryos: a response to "forced parenthood" and the role of intent. Apel SB Fam Law Q; 2005; 39(3):663-81. PubMed ID: 16610152 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Growing pains: disputes surrounding human reproductive interests stretch the boundaries of traditional legal concepts. Triber GA Seton Hall Legis J; 1998; 23(1):103-40. PubMed ID: 12755156 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. Navigating the slippery slope of frozen embryo disputes: the case for a contractual approach. Fleming NA Temple Law Rev; 2002; 75(2):345-74. PubMed ID: 15156893 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Technology and motherhood: legal and ethical issues in human egg donation. Robertson JA Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1988-1989; 39(1):1-38. PubMed ID: 11659264 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Cold shoulder treatment: the disposition of frozen embryos post-divorce. King M Thurgood Marshall Law Rev; 1999 Fall-2000 Spring; 25(1-2):99-137. PubMed ID: 16211741 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Disposition of cryopreserved preembryos after divorce. Windsor KH Iowa Law Rev; 2003 Apr; 88(4):1001-34. PubMed ID: 15214352 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The ever-widening gap between the science of artificial reproductive technology and the laws which govern that technology. Havins WE; Dalessio JJ De Paul Law Rev; 1999; 48(4):825-66. PubMed ID: 12484397 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]