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.
148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3454239)
1. The law and intensive care. The role of the courts in the ethical decision-making process. Smith DA Crit Care Clin; 1986 Jan; 2(1):123-32. PubMed ID: 3454239 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Decision-making and the right to refuse lifesaving treatment for defective newborns. Shatten DA; Chabon RS J Leg Med; 1982 Mar; 3(1):59-79. PubMed ID: 6979600 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Premature infants: a legal approach to decision-making in neonatal intensive care. Gorski SL Univ San Francisco Law Rev; 1985; 19(3-4):261-81. PubMed ID: 11649774 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Termination of medical treatment: a judicial perspective. Ackerman JW; Pope MC J Leg Med; 1982 Jun; 3(2):211-43. PubMed ID: 6981677 [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. 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]
14. Ethical decision making and the critical care team. Walton DN; Donen N Crit Care Clin; 1986 Jan; 2(1):101-9. PubMed ID: 3454238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The treatment of handicapped newborns: is there a role for law? Burt RA Issues Law Med; 1986 Jan; 1(4):279-91. PubMed ID: 11651814 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Infant care review committee and ethical decision making. Smith ED Nurs Adm Q; 1986; 10(3):44-50. PubMed ID: 3634948 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Baby Jane Doe ruling upheld; suit fails. Curran M Ob Gyn News; 1983 Dec 15-31; 18(24):8. PubMed ID: 11653509 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Model Procedures for Child Protective Service Agencies Responding to Reports of Withholding Medically Indicated Treatment from Disabled Infants with Life-Threatening Conditions. Nicholson EB; Horowitz RM; Parry J; ; Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1986; 10(3):221-49. PubMed ID: 11651933 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]