117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6090923)
1. Patient sues for title to own cells.
Blakeslee S
Nature; 1984 Sep 20-26; 311(5983):198. PubMed ID: 6090923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Patient sues UCLA over patent on cell line.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1984 Sep; 225(4669):1458. PubMed ID: 6474185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
California. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4
Wests Calif Report; 1988 Jul; 249():494-540. PubMed ID: 11648571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Outrageous fortune: selling other people's cells.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1990; 20(6):36-9. PubMed ID: 2283288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A Seattle man vents his spleen against those who would use it for profit.
Carlson P; Pilcher J
People (Chicago); 1985 Sep; 23(13):97, 100. PubMed ID: 11653641
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Mo cell case has its first court hearing.
Culliton BJ
Science; 1984 Nov; 226(4676):813-4. PubMed ID: 6494909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Court rules cells are the patient's property.
Crawford M
Science; 1988 Aug; 241(4866):653-4. PubMed ID: 3399896
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Property rights and payment to patients for cell lines derived from human tissues: an economic analysis.
Greenberg W; Kamin D
Soc Sci Med; 1993 Apr; 36(8):1071-6. PubMed ID: 8475423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Controlling conflicts of interest in the doctor-patient relationship: lessons from Moore v. Regents of the University of California.
Healey JM; Dowling KL
Mercer Law Rev; 1991; 42(3):989-1005. PubMed ID: 11651440
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Cells for sale.
Stone J
Discover; 1988 Aug; 9(8):33-9. PubMed ID: 11650025
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. A disputed spleen.
Brahams D
Lancet; 1988 Nov; 2(8620):1151-2. PubMed ID: 2903372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Rights, duties, and commercial interests: John Moore versus the regents of the University of California.
White GB; O'Connor KW
Cancer Invest; 1990; 8(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 2350719
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Leukaemia patient wants profits from his own blood.
New Sci; 1984 Sep; 103(1422):4. PubMed ID: 11655639
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Biotechnology, patients' rights, and the Moore case.
Howard JJ
Food Drug Cosmet Law J; 1989 Jul; 44(4):331-58. PubMed ID: 11659209
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Whose waste is it anyway? The case of John Moore.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1988; 18(5):37-9. PubMed ID: 3066788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Beyond Moore: issues of law and policy impacting human cell and genetic research in the age of biotechnology.
Hartman RG
J Leg Med; 1993 Sep; 14(3):463-77. PubMed ID: 7779167
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Moore v. The Regents of the University of California: an ethical debate on informed consent and property rights in a patient's cells.
Prowda JB
J Pat Trademark Off Soc; 1995 Aug; 77(8):611-39. PubMed ID: 11658094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Proprietary rights in body parts: the relevance of Moore's case in Australia.
Mortimer D
Monash Univ Law Rev; 1993; 19(1):217-25. PubMed ID: 17333577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The commercialization of human tissue -- the source of legal, ethical and social problems: an area better suited to legislative resolution.
O'Connor JJ
Loyola Los Angel Law Rev; 1990 Nov; 24(1):115-69. PubMed ID: 11659354
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Ownership of cells raises sticky issues.
Sun M
Science; 1985 Nov; 230(4727):789. PubMed ID: 4059910
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
