113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2283288)
1. Outrageous fortune: selling other people's cells.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1990; 20(6):36-9. PubMed ID: 2283288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Beyond Moore: issues of law and policy impacting human cell and genetic research in the age of biotechnology.
Hartman RG
J Leg Med; 1993 Sep; 14(3):463-77. PubMed ID: 7779167
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Whose waste is it anyway? The case of John Moore.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1988; 18(5):37-9. PubMed ID: 3066788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Patient autonomy and biomedical research: judicial compromise in Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
LoBiondo AR
Albany Law J Sci Technol; 1991; 1():277-305. PubMed ID: 16281328
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: expanded disclosure, limited property rights.
Potts J
Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1992; 86(2):453-96. PubMed ID: 11659500
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
California. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4
Wests Calif Report; 1988 Jul; 249():494-540. PubMed ID: 11648571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Patient sues UCLA over patent on cell line.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1984 Sep; 225(4669):1458. PubMed ID: 6474185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Profiting from patient tissue: can patients lay claim to profits from products derived from their tissues?
Med World News; 1985 Jun; 26(11):63. PubMed ID: 11645555
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Recognizing property interests in bodily tissues. A need for legislative guidance.
Parker PM
J Leg Med; 1989 Jun; 10(2):357-75. PubMed ID: 2760536
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. [The origin of informed consent].
Mallardi V
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital; 2005 Oct; 25(5):312-27. PubMed ID: 16602332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Moore v. Regents of the University of California: patients, property rights, and public policy.
Biagi KG
St Louis Univ Law J; 1991; 35(2):433-62. PubMed ID: 16144099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Proprietary rights in body parts: the relevance of Moore's case in Australia.
Mortimer D
Monash Univ Law Rev; 1993; 19(1):217-25. PubMed ID: 17333577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Moore v. The Regents of the University of California: an ethical debate on informed consent and property rights in a patient's cells.
Prowda JB
J Pat Trademark Off Soc; 1995 Aug; 77(8):611-39. PubMed ID: 11658094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Ethical considerations in informed consent for potential future use of human tissue samples.
Adams M; Prentice ED; Oki GS
IRB; 1996; 18(2):6-7. PubMed ID: 11654756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Patient sues for title to own cells.
Blakeslee S
Nature; 1984 Sep 20-26; 311(5983):198. PubMed ID: 6090923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. My body, my property.
Andrews LB
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Oct; 16(5):28-38. PubMed ID: 3771198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Controlling conflicts of interest in the doctor-patient relationship: lessons from Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
Healey JM; Dowling KL
Mercer Law Rev; 1991; 42(3):989-1005. PubMed ID: 11651440
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Living tissue and organ donors and property law: more on Moore.
Dickens BM
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1992; 8():73-93. PubMed ID: 10183665
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Source compensation for tissues and cells used in biotechnical research: why a source shouldn't share in the profits.
Dillon TP
Notre Dame Law Rev; 1989; 64(4):628-45. PubMed ID: 11650898
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Biotechnology: a challenge for Hippocrates.
Huynen S
Auckl Univ Law Rev; 1991; 6(4):534-51. PubMed ID: 16127862
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
