229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3595056)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Ethics committees for infants doe?
Fleischman AR; Murray TH
Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Dec; 13(6):5-9. PubMed ID: 6228539
[TBL] [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 case of Baby Jane Doe. 2. Baby Jane Doe in the courts.
Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1984 Feb; 14(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 6232243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. The federal role in protecting Babies Doe.
Gerry MH; Nimz M
Issues Law Med; 1987 Mar; 2(5):339-77. PubMed ID: 2954927
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe.
Drinan RF
America (NY); 1986 Mar; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Imperiled newborns.
Hastings Cent Rep; 1987 Dec; 17(6):5-32. PubMed ID: 2962968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. If not that way, what way?
America (NY); 1986 Jul; 155(2):21. PubMed ID: 11658787
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Aug; 16(4):29-31. PubMed ID: 3744798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Balancing wishes with wisdom: sustaining infant life.
Wakefield-Fisher M
Nurs Health Care; 1987 Nov; 8(9):517-20. PubMed ID: 11644099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
