215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2964778)
1. Severely handicapped infants with life-threatening conditions: federal intrusions into the decision not to treat.
Huefner DS
Am J Law Med; 1986; 12(2):171-205. PubMed ID: 2964778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.
Sayeed SA
Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Aug; 16(4):29-31. PubMed ID: 3744798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The antiabortion movement and Baby Jane Doe.
Paige C; Karnofsky EB
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986; 11(2):255-69. PubMed ID: 3745839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reporting the case of Baby Jane Doe.
Kerr K
Hastings Cent Rep; 1984 Aug; 14(4):7-9. PubMed ID: 6237076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A moment in human development: legal protection, ethical standards and social policy on the selective non-treatment of handicapped neonates.
Gostin L
Am J Law Med; 1985; 11(1):31-78. PubMed ID: 3832944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Putting hospitals on notice.
Fost N
Hastings Cent Rep; 1982 Aug; 12(4):5-8. PubMed ID: 6215343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Baby Doe, Congress and the states: challenging the federal treatment standard for impaired infants.
Newman SA
Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(1):1-60. PubMed ID: 2764010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Civil rights and regulatory wrongs: the Reagan administration and the medical treatment of handicapped infants.
Brown LD
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986; 11(2):231-54. PubMed ID: 3745838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Disconnecting the Baby Doe hotline.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Jun; 13(3):14-6. PubMed ID: 6224760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Procedures relating to health care for handicapped infants--DHHS.
Fed Regist; 1987 Jan; 52(20):3011-2. PubMed ID: 10317829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The federal role in protecting Babies Doe.
Gerry MH; Nimz M
Issues Law Med; 1987 Mar; 2(5):339-77. PubMed ID: 2954927
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The case of Baby Jane Doe. 2. Baby Jane Doe in the courts.
Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1984 Feb; 14(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 6232243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe.
Drinan RF
America (NY); 1986 Mar; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Baby Doe's new guardians: federal policy brings nontreatment decisions out of hiding.
Born MA
KY Law J; 1986-1987; 75(3):659-75. PubMed ID: 11651897
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. June, bioethics and the Supreme Court.
Gardell MA
J Med Philos; 1986 Aug; 11(3):285-90. PubMed ID: 3794559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bowen v. American Hospital Association.
U.S. Supreme Court
Wests Supreme Court Report; 1986 Jun; 106():2101-32. PubMed ID: 12041280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Bowen v. American Hospital Association: federal regulation is powerless to save Baby Doe.
Cantrell DF
Indiana Law Rev; 1986; 19(4):1199-218. PubMed ID: 11650766
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. What ever happened to Baby Jane...Doe?
Jolly CM
West State Univ Law Rev; 1987; 14(2):543-9. PubMed ID: 11651891
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
