153 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]
4. Legal perspectives on institutional ethics committees.
Capron AM
J Coll Univ Law; 1985; 11(4):417-31. PubMed ID: 11651865
[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]
9. Imperiled newborns.
Hastings Cent Rep; 1987 Dec; 17(6):5-32. PubMed ID: 2962968
[TBL] [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]
18. Treatment of critically ill newborns.
Pediatrics; 1983 Oct; 72(4):565-6. PubMed ID: 6889071
[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]
