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 *

307 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16594107)

  • 1. Constitutional law: parental denial of a child's medical treatment for religious reasons.
    Trahan J
    Annu Surv Am Law; 1989; 1989(1):307-41. PubMed ID: 16594107
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Constitutional law--parental and judicial consent restrictions on a minor's decision to have an abortion.
    Vozella PF
    Suffolk Univ Law Rev; 1980; 14(1):48-59. PubMed ID: 11665156
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Parents, judges, and a minor's abortion decisions: third party participation and the evolution of a judicial alternative.
    Green W
    Akron Law Rev; 1983; 17(1):87-110. PubMed ID: 16086471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Withdrawal of treatment for minors in a persistent vegetative state: parents should decide.
    Massie AM
    Ariz Law Rev; 1993; 35(1):173-218. PubMed ID: 12645558
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The competent child's preference in clinical medical decisions: a proposal for its consideration.
    Mark LB
    West State Univ Law Rev; 1983; 11(1):25-58. PubMed ID: 16086470
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Journey through the courts: minors, abortion and the quest for reproductive fairness.
    Ehrlich JS
    Yale J Law Fem; 1998; 10(1):1-27. PubMed ID: 16596765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Capital punishment of kids: when courts permit parents to act on their religious beliefs at the expense of their children's lives.
    Anderson JJ
    Vanderbilt Law Rev; 1993 Apr; 46(3):755-77. PubMed ID: 16514786
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Minor rights: the adolescent abortion cases.
    Guggenheim M
    Hofstra Law Rev; 2002; 30(3):589-646. PubMed ID: 15212070
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Using bioethics discourse to determine when parents should make health care decisions for their children: is deference justified?
    Rosato JL
    Temple Law Rev; 2000; 73(1):1-68. PubMed ID: 12449931
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Minors as medical decision makers: the pretextual reasoning of the court in the abortion cases.
    Ehrlich JS
    Mich J Gend Law; 2000; 7(1):65-106. PubMed ID: 12715809
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The religion clauses and parental health care decisionmaking for children: suggestions for a new approach.
    Massie AM
    Hastings Constit Law Q; 1994; 21(3):725-75. PubMed ID: 11863026
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Laetrile: may the state intervene on behalf of a minor?
    Ainsworth MV; Wall T
    Univ Kans Law Rev; 1982; 30(3):409-28. PubMed ID: 12083079
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Grounded in the reality of their lives: listening to teens who make the abortion decision without involving their parents.
    Ehrlich JS
    Berkeley Womens Law J; 2003; 18():61-180. PubMed ID: 15156878
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. "The trouble is they're growing, the trouble is they're grown": therapeutic jurisprudence and adolescents' participation in mental health care decisions.
    Costello JC
    Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 2003; 29(3):607-40. PubMed ID: 15868684
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Parens patriae: a revised judicial approach in medical-religious conflicts in Michigan.
    Fleming JA
    Detroit Coll Law Rev; 1981; 1981(1):83-126. PubMed ID: 11649705
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Acknowledging the hypocrisy: granting minors the right to choose their medical treatment.
    Hanisco CM
    N Y Law Sch J Hum Rights; 2000; 16(3):899-932. PubMed ID: 12645594
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The worst of both worlds?: parental involvement requirements and the privacy rights of mature minors.
    O'Shaughnessy M
    Ohio State Law J; 1996; 57(5):1731-65. PubMed ID: 16086519
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The inapplicability of parental involvement laws to the distribution of mifepristone (RU-486) to minors.
    Scuder AC
    Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law; 2002; 10(3):711-41. PubMed ID: 16594112
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Refusal to consent to treatment on religious grounds.
    Kee P
    E Law; 1995 Jul; 2(2):E3. PubMed ID: 16900611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. "Special weight" for best-interests minors in the new era of parental autonomy.
    Storrow RF; Martinez S
    Wis L Rev; 2003; (5):789-841. PubMed ID: 16437822
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.