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.
162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15586923)
1. Twins test limits of British law. MacLeod A Christ Sci Monitor (East Ed); 2000 Jan; 92(36):6. PubMed ID: 15586923 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Artificial reproduction and child custody. Dickens BM Can Bar Rev; 1987 Mar; 66(1):49-75. PubMed ID: 11658911 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Legal aspects of artificial human reproduction: can the law afford to play ostrich? Clapshaw D Auckl Univ Law Rev; 1982 Jun; 4(3):254-72. PubMed ID: 11658651 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Artificially assisted conception. Long LL Health Law Can; 1985; 5(4):89-107. PubMed ID: 11645666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Babies in limbo: law outpaced by fertility advances. Weiss R Washington Post; 1998 Feb; ():A1, A16. PubMed ID: 11648084 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A time to be born, a time to die: alternative reproduction and Texas probate law. Heard LD St Marys Law J; 1986; 17(3):927-63. PubMed ID: 11652490 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Liberty and assisted reproduction. Robertson JA Trial; 1994 Aug; 30(8):48-53. PubMed ID: 11654494 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. The British law on assisted reproduction: a liberal law by comparison with many other European laws. Sutton A Ethics Med; 1996; 12(2):41-5. PubMed ID: 11660744 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Genes, parents, and assisted reproductive technologies: ARTs, mistakes, sex, race, and law. Bender L Columbia J Gend Law; 2003; 12(1):1-76. PubMed ID: 16281329 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Assisted reproductive technology and the family. Robertson JA Hastings Law J; 1996 Apr; 47(4):911-33. PubMed ID: 11656838 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Reproductive technologies and surrogacy: legal issues. Field M Creighton Law Rev; 1992 Nov; 25(5):1589-98. PubMed ID: 11653381 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Alternative means of reproduction: virgin territory for legislation. Lorio KV LA Law Rev; 1984 Jul; 44(6):1641-76. PubMed ID: 11658743 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Assisted reproductive technologies and the Constitution. Coleman CH Fordham Urban Law J; 2002 Nov; 30(1):57-70. PubMed ID: 15868662 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Artificial conception: legislative approaches. Krause HD Fam Law Q; 1985; 19(3):185-206. PubMed ID: 11658752 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) in South America and the effect on adoption. Marques CL Tex Int Law J; 2000; 35(1):65-91. PubMed ID: 12656082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]