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.
184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16728352)
21. Sign on the dotted line: enforceability of signed agreements, upon divorce of the married couple, concerning the disposition of their frozen preembryos. Rosado M New Engl Law Rev; 2002; 36(4):1041-75. PubMed ID: 15162814 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. J.B. v. M.B. New Jersey. Superior Court. Appellate Division Wests Atl Report; 2000; 751():613-20. PubMed ID: 16285110 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. What are the ownership rights for gametes and embryos? Advance directives and the disposition of cryopreserved gametes and embryos. Pennings G Hum Reprod; 2000 May; 15(5):979-86. PubMed ID: 10783338 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. 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]
29. 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]
30. No use of stored embryos without consent. Bull Med Ethics; 2003 Sep; (191):5-6. PubMed ID: 16208789 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Moore 10 years later--still trying to fill the gap: creating a personal property right in genetic material. Seeney EB New Engl Law Rev; 1998; 32(4):1131-91. PubMed ID: 12778925 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. J.B. v. M.B. New Jersey. Supreme Court Wests Atl Report; 2001; 783():707-20. PubMed ID: 16285109 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Balancing competing interests over frozen embryos: the judgment of solomon? Evans v. United Kingdom. Annett T Med Law Rev; 2006; 14(3):425-33. PubMed ID: 16987925 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. 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]