142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2513713)
21. After Cruzan. The U. S. Supreme Court's decision settles the case but raises new questions.
Johnson SH
Health Prog; 1990 Oct; 71(8):38-41, 57. PubMed ID: 10107437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Substituted judgment: best interests in disguise.
Gutheil TG; Appelbaum PS
Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Jun; 13(3):8-11. PubMed ID: 6885405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Termination of life-sustaining medical treatment: who should exercise a patient's right to die?
Denbo SM
Health Care Superv; 1994 Jun; 12(4):60-72. PubMed ID: 10134143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Withholding or withdrawing extraordinary life support. Optimizing rights and limiting liability.
Gilfix M; Raffin TA
West J Med; 1984 Sep; 141(3):387-94. PubMed ID: 6506679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Ethical and legal issues in the treatment of incompetent religious.
Bayley C; Michel V
Health Prog; 1985 Dec; 66(10):18-21, 58. PubMed ID: 10274822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Beyond autonomy: judicial restraint and the legal limits necessary to uphold the Hippocratic tradition and preserve the ethical integrity of the medical profession.
Murphy JJ
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1993; 9():451-84. PubMed ID: 10126946
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Why law pervades medicine: an essay on ethics in health care.
Scott C
Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy; 2000; 14(1):245-303. PubMed ID: 12705270
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Do not resuscitate and the removal of life support.
Plumeri PA
J Clin Gastroenterol; 1984 Feb; 6(1):89-94. PubMed ID: 6699397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. State interests in terminating medical treatment.
Blake DC
Hastings Cent Rep; 1989; 19(3):5-13. PubMed ID: 2486743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Does autonomy require informed and specific refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment?
Bradley GV; Rouse F
Issues Law Med; 1989; 5(3):301-35. PubMed ID: 2613492
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. The ethics of Cruzan. Families, not states, should make treatment termination decisions.
Brodeur D
Health Prog; 1990 Oct; 71(8):42-7. PubMed ID: 10107438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Decisions to forego life-sustaining treatment.
Fletcher JC
Va Med; 1989 Nov; 116(11):462-5. PubMed ID: 2815990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Silent decisions: limits of consent and the terminally ill patient.
Brennan TA
Law Med Health Care; 1988; 16(3-4):204-9. PubMed ID: 3205051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Who's to choose? Surrogate decisionmaking in New York State.
Moreno JD
Hastings Cent Rep; 1993; 23(1):5-11. PubMed ID: 8436493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Refusing treatment for incompetent patients; why Quinlan and Saikewicz cases agree on roles of guardians, physicians, judges, and ethics committees.
Annas GJ
N Y State J Med; 1980 Apr; 80(5):816-21. PubMed ID: 6930563
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Patient autonomy, informed consent, and the reality of critical care.
Youngner SJ
Crit Care Clin; 1986 Jan; 2(1):41-51. PubMed ID: 3331308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The Canadian Charter of Rights and individual choice in treatment.
Ferguson G
Health Law Can; 1988; 8(3):63-70, 85. PubMed ID: 10312613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Limits of guardian treatment refusal: a reasonableness standard.
Veatch RM
Am J Law Med; 1984; 9(4):427-68. PubMed ID: 6486121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The role of judges in life/death decisions for the neurologically impaired.
Beresford HR
Ann Neurol; 1978 Nov; 4(5):463-4. PubMed ID: 736527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Profoundly diminished life. The casualties of coercion.
Morreim EH
Hastings Cent Rep; 1994; 24(1):33-42. PubMed ID: 8045768
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
