140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6481052)
1. Law and public policy. The case for the courts.
Baron C
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1984 Oct; 32(10):734-8. PubMed ID: 6481052
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Decision making in the care of terminally ill incompetent persons: concerns about the role of the courts.
Mariner WK
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1984 Oct; 32(10):739-46. PubMed ID: 6481053
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Termination of medical treatment: a judicial perspective.
Ackerman JW; Pope MC
J Leg Med; 1982 Jun; 3(2):211-43. PubMed ID: 6981677
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. The law, professional responsibility, and decisions to forego treatment.
Nelson LJ
QRB Qual Rev Bull; 1986 Jan; 12(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 3083320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Terminating life support for mentally retarded, critically ill patients: the prosecutor's perspective.
Nesbitt JB
J Leg Med; 1982 Jun; 3(2):245-65. PubMed ID: 6981678
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Withdrawal and withholding of life-supporting food and fluids. One state's struggle.
Caralis PV
J Fla Med Assoc; 1990 Sep; 77(9):821-8. PubMed ID: 2121893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. In re L.W.
Hanley RA; Avila D
Issues Law Med; 1993; 8(4):541-8. PubMed ID: 8463079
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The right of elderly patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment.
Annas GJ; Glantz LH
Milbank Q; 1986; 64(Suppl. 2):95-162. PubMed ID: 11649886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Beyond Cruzan: individual rights, family autonomy and the persistent vegetative state.
Arras JD
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1991 Oct; 39(10):1018-24. PubMed ID: 1918774
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Withholding or withdrawing extraordinary life support. Optimizing rights and limiting liability.
Gilfix M; Raffin TA
West J Med; 1984 Sep; 141(3):387-94. PubMed ID: 6506679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can healthcare providers obtain judicial intervention against surrogates who demand "medically inappropriate" life support for incompetent patients?
Cantor NL
Crit Care Med; 1996 May; 24(5):883-7. PubMed ID: 8706470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Post-Saikewicz judicial actions clarify the rights of patients and families.
Glantz LH
Medicoleg News; 1978; 6(4):9-11. PubMed ID: 10240215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Cruzan v Harmon, and In the Matter of O'Connor. Two anomalies.
Gasner MR
J Am Geriatr Soc; 1990 May; 38(5):594-9. PubMed ID: 2332578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In re guardianship of Doe.
Avila D
Issues Law Med; 1993; 8(4):535-40. PubMed ID: 8463078
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The Fox case.
McCormick RA
JAMA; 1980 Nov; 244(19):2165-6. PubMed ID: 7420719
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
