160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2760536)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. The commercialization of human tissue -- the source of legal, ethical and social problems: an area better suited to legislative resolution.
O'Connor JJ
Loyola Los Angel Law Rev; 1990 Nov; 24(1):115-69. PubMed ID: 11659354
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Toward the right of commerciality: recognizing property rights in the commercial value of human tissue.
Hardiman R
UCLA Law Rev; 1986 Oct; 34(1):207-64. PubMed ID: 11659048
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Rights, duties, and commercial interests: John Moore versus the regents of the University of California.
White GB; O'Connor KW
Cancer Invest; 1990; 8(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 2350719
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Biotechnology, patients' rights, and the Moore case.
Howard JJ
Food Drug Cosmet Law J; 1989 Jul; 44(4):331-58. PubMed ID: 11659209
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Court rules cells are the patient's property.
Crawford M
Science; 1988 Aug; 241(4866):653-4. PubMed ID: 3399896
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Bailment and donation of parts of the human body.
Brahams D
New Law J; 1989 Jun; 139(6411):803-4. PubMed ID: 11650943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. My body, my property.
Andrews LB
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Oct; 16(5):28-38. PubMed ID: 3771198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Ruling renews fears of limits on research.
Reinhold R
N Y Times Web; 1988 Jul; ():19. PubMed ID: 11646695
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Cells, sales, and royalties: the patient's right to a portion of the profits.
Danforth MT
Yale Law Policy Rev; 1988; 6(1):179-202. PubMed ID: 11650242
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Cells for sale.
Stone J
Discover; 1988 Aug; 9(8):33-9. PubMed ID: 11650025
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Biotechnology and the commercial use of human cells: toward an organic view of life and technology.
Martin PA; Lagod ML
Santa Clara Comput High Technol Law J; 1989 Jun; 5(2):211-61. PubMed ID: 11659674
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
