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.
107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2959634)
1. Public policy and disabled infants: a sociopolitical perspective. Hahn H Issues Law Med; 1987; 3(1):3-27. PubMed ID: 2959634 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Withdrawal of life-support in the newborn: whose baby is it? Clark FI Southwest Univ Law Rev; 1993; 23(1):1-46. PubMed ID: 11659817 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Who is responsible for Baby Doe? Andrusko D; Fost N; Horowitz RM; Johnson M; Marchand P; Slack IJ Public Welf; 1984; 42(3):4-9. PubMed ID: 10317487 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Of diagnoses and discrimination: discriminatory nontreatment of infants with HIV infection. Crossley MA Columbia Law Rev; 1993 Nov; 93(7):1581-667. PubMed ID: 11659791 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The legacy of Baby Doe: five perspectives. Ciulla JB Psychol Today; 1987 Jan; 21(1):70-71, 74-75. PubMed ID: 11658812 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
8. Ethical dilemmas in the treatment of critically ill newborns. Brooks BF J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1985; 1(1):133-41. PubMed ID: 10280374 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Lives of inestimable value: life worthy of life. A response to the National Health and Medical Research Council's "Discussion Paper on the Ethics of Limiting Life-sustaining Treatment". Disabled Peoples' International (Australia) Limited. Issues Law Med; 1991; 7(2):245-62. PubMed ID: 1834609 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Our hearts were once young and gay: health care rationing and the elderly. Smith GP Univ Fla J Law Public Policy; 1996; 8(1):1-23. PubMed ID: 11660529 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The ideal of community in the work of the President's Commission. Burt RA Cardozo Law Rev; 1984; 6(2):267-86. PubMed ID: 11651800 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Infant care review committee and ethical decision making. Smith ED Nurs Adm Q; 1986; 10(3):44-50. PubMed ID: 3634948 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission report, "Medical discrimination against children with disabilities": a brief commentary. Tucker BP Issues Law Med; 1990; 6(3):269-84. PubMed ID: 2149130 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The civil rights of handicapped infants: an Oklahoma "experiment". Gerry MH Issues Law Med; 1985 Jul; 1(1):15-66. PubMed ID: 2931398 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Balancing wishes with wisdom: sustaining infant life. Wakefield-Fisher M Nurs Health Care; 1987 Nov; 8(9):517-20. PubMed ID: 11644099 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Infant care review committees: their moral responsibilities. Barry RL Linacre Q; 1985 Nov; 52(4):361-74. PubMed ID: 11651843 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The legislative response to Infant Doe. Kuzma AL Indiana Law J; 1983-1984; 59(3):377-416. PubMed ID: 11658614 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The sanctity of life, the quality of life and the new 'Baby Doe' law. Johnstone BV Linacre Q; 1985 Aug; 52(3):258-70. PubMed ID: 11649728 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Comments and recommendations on the "Infant Doe" proposed regulations. Law Med Health Care; 1983 Oct; 11(5):203-9, 213. PubMed ID: 6557312 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. If not that way, what way? America (NY); 1986 Jul; 155(2):21. PubMed ID: 11658787 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]