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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3974421)

  • 21. Decision to pursue Baby Doe case born in confusion at HHS.
    Barringer F
    Washington Post; 1983 Dec; ():A19. PubMed ID: 11646342
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Withholding life-sustaining treatment from severely defective newborns: who should decide?
    Greenstein LJ
    Med Law; 1987; 6(6):487-97. PubMed ID: 3312908
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The legal response to Babies Doe: an analytical prognosis.
    Rosenblum VG; Grant ER
    Issues Law Med; 1986 Mar; 1(5):391-404. PubMed ID: 3636287
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. U.S. lawyer concedes point in 'Doe' case.
    Barringer F
    Washington Post; 1983 Dec; ():A8. PubMed ID: 11646341
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Meese approved intervention in baby case.
    Barringer F
    Washington Post; 1983 Nov; ():A16. PubMed ID: 11646345
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Withholding medical treatment from infants: when is it child neglect?
    Knepper K
    Univ Louisv J Fam Law; 1994-1995 Winter; 33(1):1-53. PubMed ID: 11653286
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Severely disabled newborns: to live or let die?
    Jackson CC
    J Leg Med; 1987 Mar; 8(1):135-76. PubMed ID: 11644153
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Baby Doe cases: compromise and moral dilemma.
    Haddon PA
    Emory Law J; 1985; 34(3-4):545-615. PubMed ID: 11658790
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Baby Jane Doe and other related matters.
    Ment Disabil Law Rep; 1983; 7(6):446-8. PubMed ID: 11651726
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Recent governmental action regarding the treatment of seriously ill newborns.
    Lawton SE; Carder EB; Weisman AW
    J Coll Univ Law; 1985; 11(4):405-16. PubMed ID: 11651864
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. "Baby Doe" regs thrown out by court.
    Culliton BJ
    Science; 1983 Apr; 220(4596):479-80. PubMed ID: 6836291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
    Annas GJ
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Aug; 16(4):29-31. PubMed ID: 3744798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The future of Baby Doe.
    Singer P; Kuhse H
    New York Rev Books; 1984 Mar; 31(3):17-22. PubMed ID: 11658414
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Forgoing treatment of critically ill newborns and the legal legacy of Baby Doe.
    Nelson LJ
    Clin Ethics Rep; 1992; 6(2):1-6. PubMed ID: 11652072
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Ruling on Baby Doe: impact limited.
    Malcolm AH
    N Y Times Web; 1986 Jun; ():A16. PubMed ID: 11646486
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The legacy of Infant Doe.
    Cosby MG
    Bayl Law Rev; 1982; 34(4):699-715. PubMed ID: 11651747
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Baby Jane Doe: stating a cause of action against the officious intermeddler.
    Vitiello M
    Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):863-908. PubMed ID: 11655858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.