165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3944404)
1. Analysis of the Supreme Court of New Jersey's decision in the Claire Conroy case.
Nevins MA
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1986 Feb; 34(2):140-3. PubMed ID: 3944404
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The case of Claire Conroy: will administrative review safeguard incompetent patients?
Lo B; Dornbrand L
Ann Intern Med; 1986 Jun; 104(6):869-73. PubMed ID: 3085567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Food and water can be withheld from dying patients: the very different situations of Claire Conroy and Karen Quinlan.
Lynn J
Death Educ; 1984; 8(4):271-5. PubMed ID: 10310838
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. What criteria should guide decision makers for incompetent patients?
Emanuel EJ
Lancet; 1988 Jan; 1(8578):170-1. PubMed ID: 2892998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Who shall live, who shall die. Who decides?
Hirsh HL; Cuneo MK
Med Law; 1986; 5(2):111-50. PubMed ID: 3713456
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. In the matter of Claire Conroy.
Connery JR
Linacre Q; 1985 Nov; 52(4):321-8. PubMed ID: 11651840
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. New Jersey's "Granny Doe" squad: arguments about mechanisms for protection of vulnerable patients.
Price DM; Armstrong PW
Law Med Health Care; 1989; 17(3):255-63. PubMed ID: 2811464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Moral reasoning and legal change: observations on the termination of medical treatment and the development of law.
Jarrett C
Rutgers Law J; 1988; 19(4):999-1028. PubMed ID: 11650183
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. When procedures limit rights: from Quinlan to Conroy.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1985 Apr; 15(2):24-6. PubMed ID: 4008237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Equality for the elderly incompetent: a proposal for dignified death.
Merritt TL
Stanford Law Rev; 1987 Feb; 39(3):689-736. PubMed ID: 10281165
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Matter of Conroy.
New Jersey. Supreme Court
Atl Report; 1985 Jan; 486():1209-50. PubMed ID: 11648233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Court responses to withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition and fluids.
Paris JJ; Reardon FE
JAMA; 1985 Apr; 253(15):2243-5. PubMed ID: 3919194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Conroy, best interests, and the handling of dying patients.
Cantor NL
Rutgers Law Rev; 1985; 37(3):543-77. PubMed ID: 11649747
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Fashion and freedom: when artificial feeding should be withdrawn.
Annas GJ
Am J Public Health; 1985 Jun; 75(6):685-8. PubMed ID: 3923847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Substitute consent. Reconciling negative treatment and consent to routine medical treatment.
Sappington GM
J Leg Med; 1986 Sep; 7(3):341-55. PubMed ID: 3490528
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A review of the ethical and legal aspects of terminating medical care.
Emanuel EJ
Am J Med; 1988 Feb; 84(2):291-301. PubMed ID: 3044071
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Judges at the bedside: the case of Joseph Saikewicz.
Annas GJ
Medicoleg News; 1978; 6(1):10-3. PubMed ID: 10289106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. "Two steps forward, one step back": an analysis of New Jersey's latest "right-to-die" decisions.
Moore NJ
Rutgers Law J; 1988; 19(4):955-98. PubMed ID: 11650182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Reconciling Quinlan and Saikewicz: decision making for the terminally ill incompetent.
Annas GJ
Am J Law Med; 1979; 4(4):367-96. PubMed ID: 507056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Caring or starving? The case of Claire Conroy.
McCormick RA
America (NY); 1985 Apr; 152(13):269-73. PubMed ID: 11658669
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
