These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2896823)
1. A baby's life or a mother's liberty: a United States case. Brahams D Lancet; 1988 Apr; 1(8592):1006. PubMed ID: 2896823 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Contemporary transatlantic developments concerning compelled medical treatment of pregnant women. Rossiter GP Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1995 May; 35(2):132-8. PubMed ID: 7677674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In re A.C. District of Columbia. Court of Appeals Atl Report; 1987 Nov; 533():611-7. PubMed ID: 11648174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In re A.C. District of Columbia. Court of Appeals, en banc Atl Report; 1990 Apr; 573():1235-64. PubMed ID: 11648191 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Court-ordered cesareans: can a pregnant woman refuse? Leavine BA Houst Law Rev; 1992; 29(1):185-218. PubMed ID: 11656666 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Fetal viability as a threshold to personhood. A legal analysis. Peterfy A J Leg Med; 1995 Dec; 16(4):607-36. PubMed ID: 8568420 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In re A.C. Bourke LH Issues Law Med; 1990; 6(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 2279918 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. In re A.C.: a court-ordered cesarean becomes precedent for nonconsensual organ harvesting. Sturgess RH Nova Law Rev; 1989; 13(2):649-69. PubMed ID: 11650356 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Foreclosing the use of force: A.C. reversed. Annas GJ Hastings Cent Rep; 1990; 20(4):27-9. PubMed ID: 2211083 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Court-ordered cesarean sections. A judicial standard for resolving the conflict between fetal interests and maternal rights. Noble-Allgire AM J Leg Med; 1989 Mar; 10(1):211-49. PubMed ID: 2651546 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The constitutionality of court-ordered cesarean surgery: a threshold question. Levine EM Albany Law J Sci Technol; 1994; 4(2):229-309. PubMed ID: 12091921 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. In re Brown. Illinois. Appellate Court, First District, Fifth Division North East Rep Second Ser; 1997 Dec; 689():397-406. PubMed ID: 12041238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Compelled medical treatment of pregnant women. Life, liberty, and law in conflict. Nelson LJ; Milliken N JAMA; 1988 Feb; 259(7):1060-6. PubMed ID: 3276942 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An Orwellian scenario: court ordered caesarean section and women's autonomy. Cahill H Nurs Ethics; 1999 Nov; 6(6):494-505. PubMed ID: 10696195 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Hospital sets policy on pregnant patients' rights. Greenhouse L N Y Times Web; 1990 Nov; ():B14. PubMed ID: 11646791 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Medical choices during pregnancy: whose decision is it anyway? Goldberg S Rutgers Law Rev; 1989; 41(2):591-623. PubMed ID: 11649263 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Resisting the temptation to turn medical recommendations into judicial orders: a reconsideration of court-ordered surgery for pregnant women. Scott C Ga State Univ Law Rev; 1994 May; 10(4):615-89. PubMed ID: 11656420 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Forcible caesarean: a new direction in British maternity care? Thoughts on the case of Mrs S. Crafter H Nurs Ethics; 1994 Mar; 1(1):53-5. PubMed ID: 7828056 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Forced cesarean sections: do the ends justify the means? Drigotas EE North Carol Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 70(1):297-321. PubMed ID: 11651652 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]