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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1971334)

  • 1. Enforced caesarean section: a US appeal.
    Brahams D
    Lancet; 1990 May; 335(8700):1270. PubMed ID: 1971334
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Forcible caesarean: a new direction in British maternity care? Thoughts on the case of Mrs S.
    Crafter H
    Nurs Ethics; 1994 Mar; 1(1):53-5. PubMed ID: 7828056
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Appeal court rules against compulsory caesarean sections.
    Dyer C
    BMJ; 1997 Apr; 314(7086):993. PubMed ID: 9112838
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. But she's not an "inanimate container...".
    Mishkin B
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1988; 18(3):40-2. PubMed ID: 3397279
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Uncertainty and medical authority in the world of Jay Katz.
    Burt RA
    Law Med Health Care; 1988; 16(3-4):190-6. PubMed ID: 3205049
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pregnant women and consent to medical treatment.
    Ginn DE
    Health Law Can; 1994; 15(2):41-8. PubMed ID: 10153629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Maternal versus fetal rights--a clinical dilemma.
    Shriner TL
    Obstet Gynecol; 1979 Apr; 53(4):518-9. PubMed ID: 440658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Court-ordered cesareans--choice or control?
    Rowan C
    Nurs Ethics; 1998 Nov; 5(6):542-4. PubMed ID: 9856072
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In re A.C.
    Bourke LH
    Issues Law Med; 1990; 6(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 2279918
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hard cases make bad law?
    Brazier M
    J Med Ethics; 1997 Dec; 23(6):341-3. PubMed ID: 9451601
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Caesareans under duress.
    Health Care Anal; 1997 Jun; 5(2):160-3. PubMed ID: 10167719
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Compulsory intervention during pregnancy.
    Brahams D
    Lancet; 1992 Oct; 340(8826):1029-30. PubMed ID: 1357414
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Enforced caesareans.
    Bull Med Ethics; 1997 Apr; (127):21-4. PubMed ID: 16127837
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Vindicating the patient's rights: a comparative perspective.
    Giesen D
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1993; 9():273-309. PubMed ID: 10126941
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Court-ordered cesarean sections. A judicial standard for resolving the conflict between fetal interests and maternal rights.
    Noble-Allgire AM
    J Leg Med; 1989 Mar; 10(1):211-49. PubMed ID: 2651546
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Consent, compulsion and the rights of the mother and unborn child.
    Dimond B
    Midwives Chron; 1986 Apr; 99(1179):78-80. PubMed ID: 2939328
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An Orwellian scenario: court ordered caesarean section and women's autonomy.
    Cahill H
    Nurs Ethics; 1999 Nov; 6(6):494-505. PubMed ID: 10696195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Maternal-fetal conflict: court-ordered cesarean section.
    Lindgren K
    J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1996 Oct; 25(8):653-6. PubMed ID: 8912215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. In re A.C. reversed: judicial recognition of the rights of pregnant women.
    Obade CC
    J Clin Ethics; 1990; 1(3):251. PubMed ID: 2132021
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Foreclosing the use of force: A.C. reversed.
    Annas GJ
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1990; 20(4):27-9. PubMed ID: 2211083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.