284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3158840)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Quality of life, sanctity of creation: palliative or apotheosis?
Smith GP
Neb Law Rev; 1984; 63(4):709-40. PubMed ID: 11652479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. United States Commission on Civil Rights--medical discrimination against children with disabilities: an abstract.
Boyd DE; Thompson PJ
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1990; 6():379-410. PubMed ID: 10170563
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 'Baby Doe' rulings-review and comment.
Britton JR
West J Med; 1984 Feb; 140(2):303-7. PubMed ID: 6730486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. "New" rights for handicapped newborns: Baby Doe and beyond.
Phillips CA
Calif West Law Rev; 1985; 22(1):127-58. PubMed ID: 11658804
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Born to live or born to die: the handicapped newborn in New Jersey.
Sarno JJ
Seton Hall Legis J; 1987; 11(1):201-22. PubMed ID: 11651899
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Infant care review committees: an effective approach to the Baby Doe dilemma?
Shapiro RS; Barthel R
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):827-62. PubMed ID: 11655857
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Backsliding on "Baby Doe"?
Med World News; 1985 Mar; 26(5):11, 15. PubMed ID: 10317572
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Disabled newborns and the federal child abuse amendments: tenuous protection.
Smith SR
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):765-825. PubMed ID: 11655856
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Recent governmental action regarding the treatment of seriously ill newborns.
Lawton SE; Carder EB; Weisman AW
J Coll Univ Law; 1985; 11(4):405-16. PubMed ID: 11651864
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
