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 *

204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16610152)

  • 1. Cryopreserved embryos: a response to "forced parenthood" and the role of intent.
    Apel SB
    Fam Law Q; 2005; 39(3):663-81. PubMed ID: 16610152
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. In re Marriage of Buzzanca: charting a new destiny.
    O'Hara MD; Vorzimer AW
    West State Univ Law Rev; 1998-1999; 26():25-45. PubMed ID: 12625315
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Parpalaix v. CECOS: Protecting Intent in Reproductive Technology.
    Katz GA
    Harv J Law Technol; 1998; 11(3):683-98. PubMed ID: 12731553
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assisted reproductive technologies: contracts, consents, and controversies.
    Elster NR
    Am J Fam Law; 2005; 18(4):193-9. PubMed ID: 17153245
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Confused heritage and the absurdity of genetic ownership.
    Silver LM; Silver SR
    Harv J Law Technol; 1998; 11(3):593-618. PubMed ID: 12731550
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Embryo donation: unresolved legal issues in the transfer of surplus cryopreserved embryos.
    Kindregan CP; McBrien M
    Villanova Law Rev; 2004; 49(1):169-206. PubMed ID: 16485374
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Suffer the children: nostalgia, contradiction and the new reproductive technologies.
    Dolgin JL
    Ariz State Law J; 1996; 28(2):473-542. PubMed ID: 11657534
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Conundrums with penumbras: the right to privacy encompasses non-gamete providers who create preembryos with the intent to become parents.
    Dillon LM
    Wash Law Rev; 2003 May; 78(2):625-51. PubMed ID: 15378817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Meeting the needs of children of assisted conception.
    Jaeger AS
    Am J Fam Law; 2000; 14(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 12449981
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The parent trap: uncovering the myth of "coerced parenthood" in frozen embryo disputes.
    Waldman E
    Am Univ Law Rev; 2004 Jun; 53(5):1021-62. PubMed ID: 15529471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Reproductive capacity: what does the embryo get?
    Stephens KU
    South Univ Law Rev; 1997; 24(2):263-91. PubMed ID: 16528857
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. In vitro fertilization and consent agreements: where does California stand?
    Ellis M
    Santa Clara Law Rev; 2002; 42(4):1191-225. PubMed ID: 15212074
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ethical dilemmas in reproductive medicine.
    Paine SJ; Moore PK; Hill DL
    Whittier Law Rev; 1996; 18(1):51-66. PubMed ID: 16273701
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Matters of life and death: inheritance consequences of reproductive technologies.
    Shapo HS
    Hofstra Law Rev; 1997; 25(4):1091-220. PubMed ID: 11858286
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A primer on posthumous conception and related issues of assisted reproduction.
    Brenwald ML; Redeker K
    Washburn Law J; 1999; 38(2):599-654. PubMed ID: 12774811
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fathering a child from the grave: what are the inheritance rights of children born through new technology after the death of a parent?
    VanCannon K
    Drake Law Rev; 2004; 52(2):331-62. PubMed ID: 16755696
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dealing with cryopreserved embryos upon divorce: a contractual approach aimed at preserving party expectations.
    Petersen SD
    UCLA Law Rev; 2003 Apr; 50(4):1065-93. PubMed ID: 15378819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Growing pains: disputes surrounding human reproductive interests stretch the boundaries of traditional legal concepts.
    Triber GA
    Seton Hall Legis J; 1998; 23(1):103-40. PubMed ID: 12755156
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.