227 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3744798)
1. Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Aug; 16(4):29-31. PubMed ID: 3744798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The antiabortion movement and Baby Jane Doe.
Paige C; Karnofsky EB
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986; 11(2):255-69. PubMed ID: 3745839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Severely handicapped infants with life-threatening conditions: federal intrusions into the decision not to treat.
Huefner DS
Am J Law Med; 1986; 12(2):171-205. PubMed ID: 2964778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. '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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Reporting the case of Baby Jane Doe.
Kerr K
Hastings Cent Rep; 1984 Aug; 14(4):7-9. PubMed ID: 6237076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. What ever happened to Baby Jane...Doe?
Jolly CM
West State Univ Law Rev; 1987; 14(2):543-9. PubMed ID: 11651891
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. A neonatologist looks at the baby Doe Rule: ethical decisions by edict.
Berseth CL
Pediatrics; 1983 Sep; 72(3):428-9. PubMed ID: 6889050
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Civil rights and regulatory wrongs: the Reagan administration and the medical treatment of handicapped infants.
Brown LD
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986; 11(2):231-54. PubMed ID: 3745838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Baby Doe redux: doctors as child abusers.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Oct; 13(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 6643033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Ruling on Baby Doe: impact limited.
Malcolm AH
N Y Times Web; 1986 Jun; ():A16. PubMed ID: 11646486
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Disconnecting the Baby Doe hotline.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Jun; 13(3):14-6. PubMed ID: 6224760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Confusion over the language of the Baby Doe regulations.
Bermel J
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Dec; 16(6):2. PubMed ID: 11643944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Survival at what cost? Origins and effects of the modern controversy on treating severely handicapped newborns.
Reiser SJ
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986; 11(2):199-213. PubMed ID: 3745836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
