95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3104232)
1. Withholding nutrition and mistrusting nurturance: the vocabulary of In re Conroy.
Burt RA
Issues Law Med; 1987 Jan; 2(4):317-30. PubMed ID: 3104232
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. In the matter of Claire C. Conroy.
Marzen TJ
Issues Law Med; 1985 Jul; 1(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 3850083
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A moral dilemma: the role of judicial intervention in withholding or withdrawing nutrition and hydration.
Peccarelli AM
John Marshall Law Rev; 1990; 23(4):537-68. PubMed ID: 16622961
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Withdrawing nutritional life support: a constitutional right or murder?
Cotton P
Med World News; 1986 Feb; 27(3):11-2, 15. PubMed ID: 10311452
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. In re Conroy: forging a path to death with dignity.
Agrawal A
Boston Univ Law Rev; 1987 Mar; 67(2):365-89. PubMed ID: 11649960
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A schizophrenic decision on Conroy.
Bank LG
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Apr; 16(2):43-4. PubMed ID: 3700078
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Withholding nutrition: a nursing perspective.
Mumma CM
Nurs Adm Q; 1986; 10(3):31-8. PubMed ID: 3085030
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. In the Matter of Claire C. Conroy, No. A-108 (N.J. Jan. 17, 1985).
Devlin MM
J Med Pract Manage; 1985 Oct; 1(2):136-9. PubMed ID: 10312027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. More on appropriate decision making for the terminally ill incompetent patient.
Norris JA
Am J Law Med; 1979; 5(2):i-vi. PubMed ID: 507059
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. In the matter of Arnold Shumosic.
Thompson G
Issues Law Med; 1990; 5(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 2108101
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. A response to Irwin Kramer's reply.
Peccarelli AM
John Marshall Law Rev; 1990; 23(4):585-9. PubMed ID: 16622963
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The lessons of Quinlan.
Drane JF
Health Prog; 1986; 67(6):19-23. PubMed ID: 10277355
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Termination of life support systems in the elderly. Discussion: To die before the gods please: legal issues surrounding euthanasia and the elderly.
Baron CH
J Geriatr Psychiatry; 1981; 14(1):45-70. PubMed ID: 7343584
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. For them rather than by them.
Capron AM
Hastings Cent Rep; 1993; 23(6):30-1. PubMed ID: 8307744
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Life and death decisions: a reply to Judge Peccarelli.
Kramer IR
John Marshall Law Rev; 1990; 23(4):569-83. PubMed ID: 16622960
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Equality for the elderly incompetent: a proposal for dignified death.
Merritt TL
Stanford Law Rev; 1987 Feb; 39(3):689-736. PubMed ID: 10281165
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
