136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 440658)
1. Maternal versus fetal rights--a clinical dilemma.
Shriner TL
Obstet Gynecol; 1979 Apr; 53(4):518-9. PubMed ID: 440658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. But she's not an "inanimate container...".
Mishkin B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1988; 18(3):40-2. PubMed ID: 3397279
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Fetal therapy and surgery. Fetal rights versus maternal obligations.
Rosner F; Bennett AJ; Cassell EJ; Farnsworth PB; Landolt AB; Loeb L; Numann PJ; Ona FV; Risemberg HM; Sechzer PH
N Y State J Med; 1989 Feb; 89(2):80-4. PubMed ID: 2710438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Fetal versus maternal rights: who is the patient?
Goldman EB
Mich Hosp; 1983 Apr; 19(4):23-5. PubMed ID: 10259175
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Court-ordered cesarean sections. A judicial standard for resolving the conflict between fetal interests and maternal rights.
Noble-Allgire AM
J Leg Med; 1989 Mar; 10(1):211-49. PubMed ID: 2651546
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Court-ordered cesarean sections: an example of the dangers of judicial involvement in medical decision making.
Stanyer BT
Gonzaga Law Rev; 1992-1993; 28(1):121-40. PubMed ID: 11654037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Fetal versus maternal rights: medical and legal perspectives.
Bowes WA; Selgestad B
Obstet Gynecol; 1981 Aug; 58(2):209-14. PubMed ID: 7254733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Lack of consent although informed: fetal neglect.
Reece SA; Reece EA
Med Trial Tech Q; 1985; 32(2):130-44. PubMed ID: 11649199
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Foreclosing the use of force: A.C. reversed.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1990; 20(4):27-9. PubMed ID: 2211083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Forced cesareans: the most unkindest cut of all.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1982 Jun; 12(3):16-7, 45. PubMed ID: 7107234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Forensic implications and medical-legal dilemmas of maternal versus fetal rights.
Mohaupt SM; Sharma KK
J Forensic Sci; 1998 Sep; 43(5):985-92. PubMed ID: 9729816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The fetus as a patient: emerging rights as a person?
Lenow JL
Am J Law Med; 1983; 9(1):1-29. PubMed ID: 6638018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Court-ordered cesarean sections receive judicial defeat.
Curran WJ
N Engl J Med; 1990 Aug; 323(7):489-92. PubMed ID: 2082954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Can a court order participation in research?
Holder AR
IRB; 1987; 9(4):8-9. PubMed ID: 11649949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Controlling the woman to protect the fetus.
Field MA
Law Med Health Care; 1989; 17(2):114-29. PubMed ID: 2755204
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The fetal right to live.
Leiberman JR; Mazor M; Chaim W; Cohen A
Obstet Gynecol; 1979 Apr; 53(4):515-7. PubMed ID: 440657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Drawing moral lines in fetal therapy.
Fletcher JC
Clin Obstet Gynecol; 1986 Sep; 29(3):595-602. PubMed ID: 3757337
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Court-ordered surgery for the protection of a viable fetus: Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority, 247 Ga. 86, 274 S.E.2d 457 (1981).
Manner RL
West New Engl Law Rev; 1982; 5(1):125-48. PubMed ID: 11649638
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Enforced caesarean section: a US appeal.
Brahams D
Lancet; 1990 May; 335(8700):1270. PubMed ID: 1971334
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Inside the womb: interpreting the Ferguson case.
Weyrauch S
Duke J Gend Law Policy; 2002; 9():81-90. PubMed ID: 14986666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
