147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16440861)
1. Terminally ill infants, parents and the courts.
Skene L
Med Law; 2005 Dec; 24(4):663-71. PubMed ID: 16440861
[TBL] [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. Why Charlie Gard's parents should have been the decision-makers about their son's best interests.
Gillon R
J Med Ethics; 2018 Jul; 44(7):462-465. PubMed ID: 29724808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Legal issues in treating critically ill newborn infants.
Skene L
Camb Q Healthc Ethics; 1993; 2(3):295-308. PubMed ID: 8293218
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Court allows family to end child's life-support systems.
N Y Times Web; 1986 Dec; ():B14. PubMed ID: 11646593
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Selective treatment decisions and the legal rights of very young infants.
Petersen KA
Med J Aust; 1994 Mar; 160(6):377-81. PubMed ID: 8133824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Rideout v. Hershey Medical Center.
Pennsylvania. Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County
Dauphin Cty Rep; 1995 Dec; 115():472-98. PubMed ID: 12041091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Charlie Gard: in defence of the law.
Close E; Willmott L; White BP
J Med Ethics; 2018 Jul; 44(7):476-480. PubMed ID: 29724811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The law regarding assisted dying for the terminally ill in the UK.
Dimond B
Int J Palliat Nurs; 2005 Nov; 11(11):582-3; discussion 584. PubMed ID: 16471045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. In re L.H.R.
Georgia. Supreme Court
South East Report Second Ser; 1984 Oct; 321():716-23. PubMed ID: 12041318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The best interests test at the end of life on PICU: a plea for a family centred approach.
Inwald D
Arch Dis Child; 2008 Mar; 93(3):248-50. PubMed ID: 17932122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. British court allows terminally ill baby to die.
Dyer C
BMJ; 1997 Nov; 315(7120):1398. PubMed ID: 11645006
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Re J (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment).
Great Britain. England. Court of Appeal, Civil Division
All Engl Law Rep; 1990 Oct; [1990] 3():930-45. PubMed ID: 11648249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Baby to be allowed a 'good death'.
Bull Med Ethics; 2004 Oct; (202):4-5. PubMed ID: 15685756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Re J (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment).
Great Britain. England. Court of Appeal, Civil Division
All Engl Law Rep; 1992 Jun; [1992] 4():614-26. PubMed ID: 11648313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. In the shadow of Karen Quinlan.
Bennett SA
Trial; 1976 Sep; 12(9):36-41. PubMed ID: 11664653
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The legal basis for ethical withholding and withdrawing of life-sustaining medical treatment in children.
Tibballs J
J Law Med; 2006 Nov; 14(2):244-61. PubMed ID: 17153529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Velez v. Bethune.
Georgia. Court of Appeals
Wests South East Report; 1995 Dec; 466():627-35. PubMed ID: 12041303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. No-code orders vs. resuscitation: the decision to withhold life-prolonging treatment from the terminally ill.
Allan SM
Wayne Law Rev; 1979 Nov; 26(1):139-72. PubMed ID: 11661826
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. A right to die?
Clark Me
Newsweek; 1975 Nov; 86(18):58-60+. PubMed ID: 11664452
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
