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.
3. Mother's rights prevail: In re A.C. and the status of forced obstetrical intervention in the District of Columbia. Neale H J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Jul; 23(7):208-13. PubMed ID: 10105493 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Mother v. fetus--the case of "do or die": in re A.C. Snyder DB J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1989; 5():319-37. PubMed ID: 10293012 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Whose rights supersede, those of the patient or those of the unborn fetus? Cady RF JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul; 1999 Mar; 1(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 10823985 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Forced medical treatment in pregnancy: resolving the conflicting rights of mother and fetus. Meyer KC Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 10104769 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Recent developments in health law relevant to health care providers. Gobis LJ Nurse Pract; 1992 Mar; 17(3):77-80. PubMed ID: 1565304 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The abortion alternative and the patient's right to know. Shapiro SC Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1979 Dec; (10):5-48. PubMed ID: 10295000 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The rights of pregnant patients: Carder case brings bold policy initiatives. Thornton TE; Paltrow L Healthspan; 1991 May; 8(5):10-6. PubMed ID: 10111987 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Whose body is it, anyway? Hewson B Nurs Stand; 1997 May; 11(35):18. PubMed ID: 9239007 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Cesareans and Samaritans. Rhoden NK Law Med Health Care; 1987; 15(3):118-25. PubMed ID: 3695574 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Refusal of invasive obstetrical intervention and the patient's right law]. Peleg D; Ben-Rafael Z Harefuah; 1997 Jul; 133(1-2):50-1. PubMed ID: 9332060 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Obstetricians, health attorneys, and court-ordered cesarean sections. Samuels TA; Minkoff H; Feldman J; Awonuga A; Wilson TE Womens Health Issues; 2007; 17(2):107-14. PubMed ID: 17403468 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Court-ordered cesarean sections: an example of the dangers of judicial involvement in medical decision making. Stanyer BT Gonzaga Law Rev; 1992-1993; 28(1):121-40. PubMed ID: 11654037 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Fetal versus maternal rights: who is the patient? Goldman EB Mich Hosp; 1983 Apr; 19(4):23-5. PubMed ID: 10259175 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Delivering justice. Andrews A Nurs Times; 1998 Jun 10-16; 94(23):31-2. PubMed ID: 9687750 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. When pregnant patients refuse interventions. Tauer CA AWHONNS Clin Issues Perinat Womens Health Nurs; 1993; 4(4):596-605. PubMed ID: 8220374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]