627 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16610149)
1. The "embryo" wars: at the epicenter of science, law, religion, and politics.
Crockin SL
Fam Law Q; 2005; 39(3):599-632. PubMed ID: 16610149
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Washington insider: federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Doerflinger RM
Natl Cathol Bioeth Q; 2005; 5(3):455-62. PubMed ID: 16425497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Use of stem cells in biotechnological research.
Paegel NS
Whittier Law Rev; 2001; 22(4):1183-221. PubMed ID: 12774792
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The politics of embryo transfer.
Majumder MA; Brakman SV
Med Ethics (Burlingt Mass); 2005; 12(3):10-1. PubMed ID: 16363074
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Misapplied ethical considerations: U.S. federal stem cell mandates lack global focus and market foresight.
Fowler HL
Cornell Int Law J; 2004; 36(3):521-44. PubMed ID: 16602208
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Donate a definition.
Herder M
Health Law Rev; 2002; 11(1):40-3. PubMed ID: 15739316
[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. No use of stored embryos without consent.
Bull Med Ethics; 2003 Sep; (191):5-6. PubMed ID: 16208789
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Stem cell research: is the law preventing progress?
Enmon JL
Utah Law Rev; 2002; (3):621-48. PubMed ID: 15156897
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Sperm, egg, and a petri dish. Unveiling the underlying property issues surrounding cryopreserved embryos.
Langley LS; Blackston JW
J Leg Med; 2006 Jun; 27(2):167-206. PubMed ID: 16728352
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Seeking a better solution for the disposition of frozen embryos: is embryo adoption the answer?
Redman PC; Redman LF
Tulsa Law J; 2000; 35(3-4):583-98. PubMed ID: 16273678
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
