141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2892998)
1. What criteria should guide decision makers for incompetent patients?
Emanuel EJ
Lancet; 1988 Jan; 1(8578):170-1. PubMed ID: 2892998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Should physicians withhold life-sustaining care from patients who are not terminally ill?
Emanuel EJ
Lancet; 1988 Jan; 1(8577):106-8. PubMed ID: 2891943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In thunder, lightning or in rain: what three doctors can do.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1987; 17(5):28-30. PubMed ID: 3692804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Analysis of the Supreme Court of New Jersey's decision in the Claire Conroy case.
Nevins MA
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1986 Feb; 34(2):140-3. PubMed ID: 3944404
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Reconciling Quinlan and Saikewicz: decision making for the terminally ill incompetent.
Annas GJ
Am J Law Med; 1979; 4(4):367-96. PubMed ID: 507056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The case of Claire Conroy: will administrative review safeguard incompetent patients?
Lo B; Dornbrand L
Ann Intern Med; 1986 Jun; 104(6):869-73. PubMed ID: 3085567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Court responses to withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and fluids.
Paris JJ; Reardon FE
JAMA; 1985 Apr; 253(15):2243-5. PubMed ID: 3919194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Food and water can be withheld from dying patients: the very different situations of Claire Conroy and Karen Quinlan.
Lynn J
Death Educ; 1984; 8(4):271-5. PubMed ID: 10310838
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. When procedures limit rights: from Quinlan to Conroy.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1985 Apr; 15(2):24-6. PubMed ID: 4008237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Moral reasoning and legal change: observations on the termination of medical treatment and the development of law.
Jarrett C
Rutgers Law J; 1988; 19(4):999-1028. PubMed ID: 11650183
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. From Quinlan to Jobes: the courts and the PVS patient.
Armstrong PW; Colen BD
Hastings Cent Rep; 1988; 18(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 3350650
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Whose right is it anyway? Individualism, community, and the right to die: a commentary on the New Jersey experience.
Weinberg JK
Hastings Law J; 1988 Nov; 40(1):119-67. PubMed ID: 11659106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Decisions to abate life-sustaining treatment for nonautonomous patients. Ethical standards and legal liability for physicians after Cruzan.
Weir RF; Gostin L
JAMA; 1990 Oct; 264(14):1846-53. PubMed ID: 2402044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In re Jobes.
New Jersey. Supreme Court
Atl Report; 1987 Jun; 529():434-65. PubMed ID: 11648265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can healthcare providers obtain judicial intervention against surrogates who demand "medically inappropriate" life support for incompetent patients?
Cantor NL
Crit Care Med; 1996 May; 24(5):883-7. PubMed ID: 8706470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Matter of Conroy.
New Jersey. Supreme Court
Atl Report; 1985 Jan; 486():1209-50. PubMed ID: 11648233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. In re Estate of Longeway.
Illinois. Supreme Court
North East Rep Second Ser; 1989 Nov; 549():292-322. PubMed ID: 12041217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The lessons of Quinlan.
Drane JF
Health Prog; 1986; 67(6):19-23. PubMed ID: 10277355
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The legal aspects of withdrawing nourishment.
Horan DJ; Grant ER
J Leg Med; 1984 Dec; 5(4):595-632. PubMed ID: 6394680
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. In re Quinlan: one step further.
Ek GK
Houst Law Rev; 1987 Mar; 24(2):383-98. PubMed ID: 11649893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
