BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

515 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16047420)

  • 1. Right to refuse life sustaining medical treatment and the noncompetent nonterminally ill patient: an analysis of abridgment and anarchy.
    Adamson EH
    Pepperdine Law Rev; 1990; 17(2):461-92. PubMed ID: 16047420
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Privacy I: surrogate decision making for the terminally ill.
    Eisenberg KG
    Annu Surv Am Law; 1988; 1(2):353-84. PubMed ID: 11652656
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Someone to watch over me: medical decision-making for hopelessly ill incompetent adult patients.
    Dippel DL
    Akron Law Rev; 1991; 24(3-4):639-80. PubMed ID: 16144098
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Therefore, choose death.
    Brown ML
    Human Rights; 1982; 10(3):38-45. PubMed ID: 11651709
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Artificial nutrition and the terminally ill: how should Washington decide?
    Beatty JA
    Wash Law Rev; 1986 Apr; 61(2):419-57. PubMed ID: 11652503
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effects of the Cruzan case on the rights of elderly clients.
    Gottlich V
    Clgh Rev; 1990 Nov; 24(7):663-70. PubMed ID: 11652574
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The right of the dying to refuse life prolonging medical procedures: the evolving importance of state constitutions.
    Marks TC; Morgan RC
    Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1992; 18(3):467-98. PubMed ID: 11654441
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Chapter 765 revisited: Florida's new advance directives law.
    Calder M
    Fla State Univ Law Rev; 1992; 20(2):291-365. PubMed ID: 16001475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The ultimate test of autonomy: should minors have a right to make decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment?
    Rosato JL
    Rutgers Law Rev; 1996; 49(1):1-103. PubMed ID: 11865878
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Decisionmaking in authorizing and withholding life sustaining medical treatment: from Quinlan to Cruzan.
    Keilitz I; Bilzor JC; Hafemeister TL; Brown V; Dudyshyn D
    Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1989; 13(5):482-93. PubMed ID: 11654759
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Deciding for others: New York law and the rights of incompetent persons to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment.
    Martino M
    NY Law Sch Law Rev; 1996; 41(1):285-308. PubMed ID: 12718312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Whose life is it anyway?: an analysis and commentary on the emerging law of physician-assisted suicide.
    Gaumer CP; Griffith PR
    S D Law Rev; 1997; 42(3):357-98. PubMed ID: 16086516
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. "Right to die" cases: a model for judicial decision-making?
    Webster WL
    N Y Law School Hum Rights Annu; 1990; 7(2):140-56. PubMed ID: 11652592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The "terminal condition" condition in Virginia's Natural Death Act.
    Matthew DB
    Va Law Rev; 1987 May; 73(4):749-81. PubMed ID: 11652506
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The encouragment of empathy: just decisionmaking for incompetent terminal patients.
    Oxman ML
    J Law Health; 1988-1989; 3(2):189-217. PubMed ID: 11652566
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act: too little, too late?
    Chapman MA
    Ark Law Rev; 1989; 42(2):319-94. PubMed ID: 11653880
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Confusion in right to die ideology: impact of ethical decision making for treatment of an incompetent client.
    Harner SR
    Georget J Leg Ethics; 1991; 4(4):869-98. PubMed ID: 12186076
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Refusal of hydration and nutrition: irrelevance of the "artificial" vs "natural" distinction.
    Truog RD; Cochrane TI
    Arch Intern Med; 2005 Dec 12-26; 165(22):2574-6. PubMed ID: 16344412
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Right to die--court requires clear and convincing evidence of persistent vegetative patient's intent to terminate life-sustaining procedures; Health Care Decisions Act of 1993 casts new light on outcome.
    Brindisi TJ
    Univ Baltimore Law Rev; 1994; 23(2):619-44. PubMed ID: 16086514
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Exercising the right to die: a proposal for New York.
    Caffera SM
    Syracuse Law Rev; 1991; 42(4):1189-240. PubMed ID: 16130264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 26.