264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16514764)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Judge orders divorcing couple's frozen embryos destroyed.
N Y Times Web; 1998 Sep; ():B6. PubMed ID: 11647640
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. From a to z: analysis of Massachusetts' approach to the enforceability of cryopreserved pre-embryo dispositional agreements.
Kaplan S
Boston Univ Law Rev; 2001 Dec; 81(5):1093-118. PubMed ID: 12715818
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Kass v. Kass.
New York. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
Wests N Y Suppl; 1997 Sep; 663():581-602. PubMed ID: 12041117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Halakhic approaches to the resolution of disputes concerning the disposition of preembryos.
Breitowitz YA
Tradition; 1996; 31(1):64-91. PubMed ID: 11654662
[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. Navigating the slippery slope of frozen embryo disputes: the case for a contractual approach.
Fleming NA
Temple Law Rev; 2002; 75(2):345-74. PubMed ID: 15156893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Disputing over embryos: of contracts and consents.
Waldman EA
Ariz State Law J; 2000; 32(3):897-940. PubMed ID: 12769122
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
