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 *

339 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15741390)

  • 1. Are the 21-year-old Baby Doe rules misunderstood or mistaken?
    Kopelman LM
    Pediatrics; 2005 Mar; 115(3):797-802. PubMed ID: 15741390
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.
    Sayeed SA
    Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Extreme prematurity and parental rights after Baby Doe.
    Robertson JA
    Hastings Cent Rep; 2004; 34(4):32-9. PubMed ID: 15379100
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Baby Jane Doe's right of privacy from cradle to grave: infirmities of the 1984 Child Abuse Amendment.
    Baughman LK
    Med Law; 1987; 6(5):375-84. PubMed ID: 3657404
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The ballad of Baby Doe: parental discretion or medical neglect?
    Victoroff MS
    Prim Care; 1986 Jun; 13(2):271-83. PubMed ID: 2941814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Medical futility in pediatrics: is it time for a public policy?
    Clark PA
    J Public Health Policy; 2002; 23(1):66-89. PubMed ID: 12013717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In re K.I.: an urgent need for a uniform system in the treatment of the critically ill infant--recognizing the sanctity of life of the child.
    Guevara AL
    Univ San Francisco Law Rev; 2001; 36(1):237-60. PubMed ID: 16523587
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Neonatologists judge the "Baby Doe" regulations.
    Kopelman LM; Irons TG; Kopelman AE
    N Engl J Med; 1988 Mar; 318(11):677-83. PubMed ID: 3344019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Baby Doe: nothing to fear but fear itself.
    Barnett TJ
    J Perinatol; 1990 Sep; 10(3):307-11. PubMed ID: 2145405
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. United States Commission on Civil Rights--medical discrimination against children with disabilities: an abstract.
    Boyd DE; Thompson PJ
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1990; 6():379-410. PubMed ID: 10170563
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Baby Doe regulations: views from perinatal social workers.
    York GY; Gallarno RM
    J Perinatol; 1990 Sep; 10(3):312-6. PubMed ID: 2145406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Infant Doe Amendments and parental privacy. Who makes the treatment decisions?
    Schnorr DL
    Med Law; 1987; 6(5):427-39. PubMed ID: 3657406
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Neonatal ethics at the limits of viability.
    McCullough LB
    Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):1019-21. PubMed ID: 16199718
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Rejecting the Baby Doe rules and defending a "negative" analysis of the Best Interests Standard.
    Kopelman LM
    J Med Philos; 2005 Aug; 30(4):331-52. PubMed ID: 16029986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Children not meant to be: protecting the interests of the child when abortion results in live birth.
    Casagrande KM
    Quinnipiac Health Law J; 2002; 6(1):19-55. PubMed ID: 16180297
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. History of the medical home concept.
    Sia C; Tonniges TF; Osterhus E; Taba S
    Pediatrics; 2004 May; 113(5 Suppl):1473-8. PubMed ID: 15121914
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. American Academy of Pediatrics: Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect and Committee on Children With Disabilities. Assessment of maltreatment of children with disabilities.
    Pediatrics; 2001 Aug; 108(2):508-12. PubMed ID: 11483827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The ADA and the Supreme Court: a mixed record.
    Bagenstos SR
    JAMA; 2015 Jun; 313(22):2217-8. PubMed ID: 26057276
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Disputes over moral standards guiding treatments for imperiled infants.
    Kopelman LM
    Semin Perinatol; 2009 Dec; 33(6):372-6. PubMed ID: 19914521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Supreme Court asked to review application of Rehabilitation Act to medical decisions.
    Paulus SM
    Issues Law Med; 1985 Jul; 1(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 2931399
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.