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.
2. 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]
3. Establishing decision making standards for medical treatment to protect the civil rights of handicapped newborns. Glasow SB J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1986; 2():255-74. PubMed ID: 10317803 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Treatment dilemmas for imperiled newborns: why quality of life counts. Rhoden NK South Calif Law Rev; 1985 Sep; 58(6):1283-347. PubMed ID: 11660412 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The care of defective neonates, ethics committees and federal intervention. Riga PJ Linacre Q; 1984 Aug; 51(3):255-76. PubMed ID: 11649572 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Withholding treatment from defective newborns: who decides and on what criteria? Longino PH Univ Kans Law Rev; 1983; 31(3):377-407. PubMed ID: 11658479 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
9. 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]
11. Delivery room resuscitation of the high-risk infant: a conflict of rights. Cooper R Cathol Lawyer; 1990; 33(4):325-60. PubMed ID: 11659422 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Neonatal euthanasia: Jewish views of a contemporary dilemma. Jakobovits Y Tradition; 1986; 22(3):13-30. PubMed ID: 11651882 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Withholding treatment from Baby Doe: from discrimination to child abuse. Rhoden NK; Arras JD Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc; 1985; 63(1):18-51. PubMed ID: 3158840 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Ethical and legal issues in the care of the impaired newborn. Moreno JD Clin Perinatol; 1987 Jun; 14(2):345-60. PubMed ID: 3595056 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Treatment of seriously ill and handicapped newborns. Fost N Crit Care Clin; 1986 Jan; 2(1):145-59. PubMed ID: 11644122 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn. Horan DJ; Balch BJ Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]