173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2145406)
1. The Baby Doe regulations: views from perinatal social workers.
York GY; Gallarno RM
J Perinatol; 1990 Sep; 10(3):312-6. PubMed ID: 2145406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Baby Doe: nothing to fear but fear itself.
Barnett TJ
J Perinatol; 1990 Sep; 10(3):307-11. PubMed ID: 2145405
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Neonatologists judge the "Baby Doe" regulations.
Kopelman LM; Irons TG; Kopelman AE
N Engl J Med; 1988 Mar; 318(11):677-83. PubMed ID: 3344019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn.
Horan DJ; Balch BJ
Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The case of Baby Jane Doe. 2. Baby Jane Doe in the courts.
Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1984 Feb; 14(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 6232243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. "New" rights for handicapped newborns: Baby Doe and beyond.
Phillips CA
Calif West Law Rev; 1985; 22(1):127-58. PubMed ID: 11658804
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission report, "Medical discrimination against children with disabilities": a brief commentary.
Tucker BP
Issues Law Med; 1990; 6(3):269-84. PubMed ID: 2149130
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Baby Doe, Congress and the states: challenging the federal treatment standard for impaired infants.
Newman SA
Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(1):1-60. PubMed ID: 2764010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Infants with anencephaly, the ADA, and the Child Abuse Amendments.
Crossley M
Issues Law Med; 1996; 11(4):379-410. PubMed ID: 8934859
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The ballad of Baby Doe: parental discretion or medical neglect?
Victoroff MS
Prim Care; 1986 Jun; 13(2):271-83. PubMed ID: 2941814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comments and recommendations on the "Infant Doe" proposed regulations.
Law Med Health Care; 1983 Oct; 11(5):203-9, 213. PubMed ID: 6557312
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Aug; 16(4):29-31. PubMed ID: 3744798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The civil rights of handicapped infants: an Oklahoma "experiment".
Gerry MH
Issues Law Med; 1985 Jul; 1(1):15-66. PubMed ID: 2931398
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Born to live or born to die: the handicapped newborn in New Jersey.
Sarno JJ
Seton Hall Legis J; 1987; 11(1):201-22. PubMed ID: 11651899
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Baby Doe regulations and medical judgment.
York GY; Gallarno RM; York RO
Soc Sci Med; 1990; 30(6):657-64. PubMed ID: 2315735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 and their implementing regulations: a summary.
Bopp J; Balch TJ
Issues Law Med; 1985 Sep; 1(2):91-130. PubMed ID: 3899985
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Medical discrimination against children with disabilities: a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Shapiro RS
Issues Law Med; 1990; 6(3):285-96. PubMed ID: 2149131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Baby Doe redux: doctors as child abusers.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Oct; 13(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 6643033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. When love and abuse are not mutually exclusive: the need for government intervention.
Obernberger S
Issues Law Med; 1997; 12(4):355-81. PubMed ID: 9114605
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The legal response to Babies Doe: an analytical prognosis.
Rosenblum VG; Grant ER
Issues Law Med; 1986 Mar; 1(5):391-404. PubMed ID: 3636287
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
