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 *

82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3866978)

  • 1. The meaning of the Conroy decision.
    Rothberg H
    N J Med; 1985 Dec; 82(12):954-5. PubMed ID: 3866978
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Conroy decision.
    Maressa VA
    N J Med; 1985 Dec; 82(12):957-8. PubMed ID: 3866979
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A schizophrenic decision on Conroy.
    Bank LG
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Apr; 16(2):43-4. PubMed ID: 3700078
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. After Conroy: 'When is enough enough'?
    Swick T
    Am Coll Physicians Obs; 1985; 5(7):14-5. PubMed ID: 10272592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In the Matter of Claire C. Conroy, No. A-108 (N.J. Jan. 17, 1985).
    Devlin MM
    J Med Pract Manage; 1985 Oct; 1(2):136-9. PubMed ID: 10312027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The feeding dilemma: In the Matter of Conroy.
    Plumeri PA
    J Clin Gastroenterol; 1985 Aug; 7(4):372-4. PubMed ID: 3930597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Nutritional deprivation to terminate a patient's life. In re Conroy, 190 N.J. Super. 453 (1983).
    Smith A
    Health Matrix; 1984; 2(2):85. PubMed ID: 10266972
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Quinlan case: death decision by committee.
    Annas GJ
    New Physician; 1979 Feb; 28(2):53-4, 56. PubMed ID: 10240660
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. New Jersey Supreme Court outlines standards for treatment withdrawal.
    Ahern ML
    Health Law Vigil; 1985 Feb; 8(4):4-6. PubMed ID: 10269746
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Life support issues: is involvement of the court required?
    Weissburg C; Hartz JN
    Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1984; 17(1):94, 97-8. PubMed ID: 10265082
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The issue of feeding: it is the most troubling of the life support questions.
    Weissburg C; Hartz JN
    Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1983; 16(6):42-3. PubMed ID: 10310307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Update: the removal of life supports in long-term care facilities.
    Robbins DA
    J Long Term Care Adm; 1985; 13(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 10270754
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. NJ Supreme Court rules on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
    Ahern ML
    Health Law Vigil; 1987 Jul; 10(16):6-8. PubMed ID: 10282651
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Court's guidelines on incompetent patients compromise their rights.
    Connery JR
    Hosp Prog; 1980 Sep; 61(9):46-9. PubMed ID: 10248004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Big brother at the bedside.
    Nevins MA
    N J Med; 1985 Dec; 82(12):950-2. PubMed ID: 3866977
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Decisions at the end of life: the legacy of Karen Ann Quinlan.
    Healey JM
    Conn Med; 1985 Aug; 49(8):549. PubMed ID: 4028719
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Changing the rules on dying.
    McIntyre RL
    N J Med; 1985 Dec; 82(12):945-8. PubMed ID: 3866976
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Legal models for the treatment of the terminally ill.
    Dunn LJ
    Trustee; 1979 May; 32(5):7-8, 11-3. PubMed ID: 10242400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quinlan case set pace for bioethics debate.
    Hospitals; 1985 Aug; 59(15):36-7. PubMed ID: 4018757
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Have courts taken legal risk from feeding refusals?
    Burda D
    Hospitals; 1986 Jun; 60(11):36. PubMed ID: 3084375
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.