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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38332597)

  • 1. Consumers or Patients? Medical Device Recipients under Australian Law Straddle Two Worlds.
    Symons J; Rizzi M
    J Law Med; 2023 Dec; 30(3):572-592. PubMed ID: 38332597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Harriton, Waller And Australian negligence law: is there a place for wrongful life?
    Kapterian G
    J Law Med; 2006 Feb; 13(3):336-51. PubMed ID: 16506726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The High Court's lost chance in medical negligence: Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537.
    Faunce T; McEwan A
    J Law Med; 2010 Dec; 18(2):275-83. PubMed ID: 21355430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Australian tort law reform: statutory principles of causation and the common law.
    Mendelson D
    J Law Med; 2004 May; 11(4):492-509. PubMed ID: 15214134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Abandoning the common law: medical negligence, genetic tests and wrongful life in the Australian High Court.
    Faunce T; Jefferys S
    J Law Med; 2007 May; 14(4):469-77. PubMed ID: 17571781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The defence of therapeutic privilege in Australia.
    Mulheron R
    J Law Med; 2003 Nov; 11(2):201-13. PubMed ID: 14655584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The importance of least restrictive care: the clinical implications of a recent High Court decision on negligence.
    Ryan CJ; Callaghan S; Large M
    Australas Psychiatry; 2015 Aug; 23(4):415-7. PubMed ID: 26104773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v ACN 117 372 915: SHOULD CONSUMER LAW REGULATE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONS IN A CORPORATISED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
    Wallace J; Pyman E; Faunce T
    J Law Med; 2015 Sep; 23(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 26554198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Issues When Determining Negligence.
    Nolan P; Matulionyte R
    J Law Med; 2023 Dec; 30(3):593-615. PubMed ID: 38332598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. WHERE DOES RESPONSIBILITY LIE? ANALYSING LEGAL AND REGULATORY RESPONSES TO FLAWED CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS WHEN PATIENTS SUFFER HARM.
    Prictor M
    Med Law Rev; 2023 Feb; 31(1):1-24. PubMed ID: 35856156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Psychiatric injury law in England and Australia--drawing closer together?
    Mendelson D
    J Law Med; 2007 Oct; 15(2):176-97. PubMed ID: 18035837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Doctor-patient privilege.
    Freckelton I
    J Law Med; 2009 Dec; 17(3):309-13. PubMed ID: 20169793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pure Psychiatric Injury Pursuant to the Civil Liability Legislation: An(other) Economic Perspective.
    Allcock M
    J Law Med; 2018 Apr; 25(3):814-836. PubMed ID: 29978670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Montgomery's legal and practical impact: A systematic review at 6 years.
    Le Gallez I; Skopek J; Liddell K; Kuhn I; Sagar A; Fritz Z
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2022 Aug; 28(4):690-702. PubMed ID: 34623013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Professional negligence: when practice goes wrong.
    Harris CE; Richards W; Fincham JE
    Ann Pharmacother; 2006; 40(7-8):1377-82. PubMed ID: 16804097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Procreative torts: enhancing the common-law protection for reproductive autonomy.
    Northern KS
    Univ Ill Law Rev; 1998; 1998(2):489-546. PubMed ID: 12774812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Life after Riegel: a fresh look at medical device preemption one year after Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
    Wartman GJ
    Food Drug Law J; 2009; 64(2):291-311. PubMed ID: 19999286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden.
    United States. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    Wests Fed Rep; 2004; 379():531-57. PubMed ID: 16477726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The misplace of litigation in medical practice.
    Wood C
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1998 Nov; 38(4):365-76. PubMed ID: 9890212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.