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.
233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15378819)
21. Procreative liberty and contemporaneous choice: an inalienable rights approach to frozen embryo disputes. Coleman CH Minn Law Rev; 1999 Nov; 84(1):55-127. PubMed ID: 16514764 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Chilling aspects of procreation. Zwart-Hendrikx N Med Law; 2002; 21(3):567-86. PubMed ID: 12437204 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Sperm, egg, and a petri dish. Unveiling the underlying property issues surrounding cryopreserved embryos. Langley LS; Blackston JW J Leg Med; 2006 Jun; 27(2):167-206. PubMed ID: 16728352 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Snowflake adoptions and orphan embryos: the legal implications of embryo donation. Katz KD Wis Womens Law J; 2003; 18(2):179-231. PubMed ID: 15568246 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. To dispose or not to dispose: questioning the fate of preembryos after a divorce in J.B. v. M.B. Issa F Houst Law Rev; 2003; 39(5):1549-90. PubMed ID: 15212012 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. No use of stored embryos without consent. Bull Med Ethics; 2003 Sep; (191):5-6. PubMed ID: 16208789 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Reproductive capacity: what does the embryo get? Stephens KU South Univ Law Rev; 1997; 24(2):263-91. PubMed ID: 16528857 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Resolving disputes over frozen embryos. Robertson JA Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(6):7-12. PubMed ID: 2606667 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Disputes over frozen embryos: who wins, who loses, and how do we decide?--An analysis of Davis v. Davis, York v. Jones, and state statutes affecting reproductive choices. Ahnen CD Creighton Law Rev; 1991 Jun; 24(4):1299-357. PubMed ID: 16130262 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Family law--contract--Supreme Court of New Jersey holds that preembryo disposition agreements are not binding when one party later objects.--J.B. v. M.B., No. A-9-00, 2001 WL 909294 (N.J. Aug. 14, 2001). Harv Law Rev; 2001 Dec; 115(2):701-8. PubMed ID: 11958230 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Kass v. Kass. New York. Court of Appeals. North East Rep Second Ser; 1998 May; 696():174-82. PubMed ID: 11852946 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. J.B. v. M.B. New Jersey. Supreme Court Wests Atl Report; 2001; 783():707-20. PubMed ID: 16285109 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Suffer the children: nostalgia, contradiction and the new reproductive technologies. Dolgin JL Ariz State Law J; 1996; 28(2):473-542. PubMed ID: 11657534 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Assisted reproductive technologies and the pregnancy process: developing an equality model to protect reproductive liberties. Daar JF Am J Law Med; 1999; 25(4):455-77. PubMed ID: 10629732 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]