227 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16130262)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. The Davis dilemma: how to prevent battles over frozen preembryos.
Panitch AR
Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1991; 41(2):543-79. PubMed ID: 16127877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Davis v. Davis: the applicability of privacy and property rights to the disposition of frozen preembryos in intrafamilial disputes.
Muller RJ
Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1993; 24(3):763-804. PubMed ID: 11659794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Frozen embryos: towards an equitable solution.
Trespalacios MJ
Univ Miami Law Rev; 1992 Jan; 46(3):803-34. PubMed ID: 16047447
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The implications of Davis v. Davis for reproductive rights analysis.
Prygoski PJ
Tenn Law Rev; 1994; 61(2):609-46. PubMed ID: 11652933
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. No ABA embryo policy.
Washington Post; 1998 Feb; ():A5. PubMed ID: 11647577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. In vitro fertilization and the right to procreate: the right to no.
Sieck WA
Univ PA Law Rev; 1998 Dec; 147(2):435-85. PubMed ID: 16514780
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Examining disputes over ownership rights to frozen embryos: will prior consent documents survive if challenged by state law and/or constitutional principles?
Sheinbach DM
Cathol Univers Law Rev; 1999; 48(3):989-1027. PubMed ID: 12611403
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Israeli court gives wife right to embryos.
Greenberg J
N Y Times Web; 1996 Sep; ():A10. PubMed ID: 11647247
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Court gives ex-husband rights on use of embryos.
Smothers R
N Y Times Web; 1992 Jun; ():A1, A16. PubMed ID: 11647922
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. J.B. v. M.B.
New Jersey. Superior Court. Appellate Division
Wests Atl Report; 2000; 751():613-20. PubMed ID: 16285110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Ulysses and the fate of frozen embryos--reproduction, research, or destruction?
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 2000 Aug; 343(5):373-6. PubMed ID: 10922428
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
