190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3236350)
1. When caesarean section operations imposed by a court are justified.
Kluge EH
J Med Ethics; 1988 Dec; 14(4):206-11. PubMed ID: 3236350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Current controversies in obstetrics: wrongful life and forced fetal surgical procedures.
Engelhardt HT
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1985 Feb; 151(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 3970098
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Contemporary transatlantic developments concerning compelled medical treatment of pregnant women.
Rossiter GP
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1995 May; 35(2):132-8. PubMed ID: 7677674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Court-ordered obstetrical intervention and the rights of a pregnant woman.
Thampapillai D
J Law Med; 2005 May; 12(4):455-61. PubMed ID: 15957588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cesareans and Samaritans.
Rhoden NK
Law Med Health Care; 1987; 15(3):118-25. PubMed ID: 3695574
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Abortion ethics.
Fromer MJ
Nurs Outlook; 1982 Apr; 30(4):234-40. PubMed ID: 7041095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Women, forced caesareans and antenatal responsibilities.
Draper H
J Med Ethics; 1996 Dec; 22(6):327-33. PubMed ID: 8961116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Self-identification and the morality of abortion.
Lusby K
Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1992; 24(1):121-58. PubMed ID: 11656258
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Emerging notions of women's rights and responsibilities during gestation.
Blank RH
J Leg Med; 1986 Dec; 7(4):441-69. PubMed ID: 3492583
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Re Baby R: a comment on fetal apprehension.
Dawson TB
Can J Women Law; 1990; 4(1):265-75. PubMed ID: 11649295
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Treating fetuses: the patient as person.
Trau JM
J Med Humanit; 1991; 12(4):173-81. PubMed ID: 11652029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Forced medical treatment of pregnant women: "compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
Nelson LJ; Buggy BP; Weil CJ
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):703-63. PubMed ID: 11655855
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Apprehending the fetus en ventre sa mere: a study in judicial sleight of hand.
Tateishi SA
Sask Law Rev; 1989; 53(1):113-41. PubMed ID: 11656024
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Future fear: prenatal duties imposed by private parties.
Solomon RI
Am J Law Med; 1991; 17(4):411-34. PubMed ID: 1812768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The judge in the delivery room: the emergence of court-ordered cesareans.
Rhoden NK
Calif Law Rev; 1986 Dec; 74(6):1951-2030. PubMed ID: 11658950
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Compulsory treatment of pregnant women.
Nelson LJ
Clin Ethics Rep; 1987 May; 1(5):1-8. PubMed ID: 11659055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Maternal/fetal rights: two views.
Justin RG; Rosner F
J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972); 1989; 44(3):90-5. PubMed ID: 2723319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Abortion and embodiment.
Mackenzie C
Australas J Philos; 1992 Jun; 70(2):136-55. PubMed ID: 11659596
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. In re A.C.
District of Columbia. Court of Appeals, en banc
Atl Report; 1990 Apr; 573():1235-64. PubMed ID: 11648191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Delivering hydrocephalic fetuses.
Strong C
Bioethics; 1991 Jan; 5(1):1-22. PubMed ID: 11650945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
