131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6638020)
1. Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority: court-ordered surgery to protect the life of an unborn child.
Finamore EP
Am J Law Med; 1983; 9(1):83-101. PubMed ID: 6638020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority.
Georgia. Supreme Court
South East Report Second Ser; 1981 Feb; 274():457-62. PubMed ID: 12041308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The constitutionality of court-ordered cesarean surgery: a threshold question.
Levine EM
Albany Law J Sci Technol; 1994; 4(2):229-309. PubMed ID: 12091921
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Toward guidelines for compelling cesarean surgery: of rights, responsibility, and decisional authenticity.
Finer JJ
Minn Law Rev; 1991 Dec; 76(2):239-94. PubMed ID: 11659551
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Mother v. her unborn child: where should Texas draw the line?
Locke NJ
Houst Law Rev; 1987 May; 24(3):549-76. PubMed ID: 11649225
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Forced cesarean sections: do the ends justify the means?
Drigotas EE
North Carol Law Rev; 1991 Nov; 70(1):297-321. PubMed ID: 11651652
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Resisting the temptation to turn medical recommendations into judicial orders: a reconsideration of court-ordered surgery for pregnant women.
Scott C
Ga State Univ Law Rev; 1994 May; 10(4):615-89. PubMed ID: 11656420
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Contemporary transatlantic developments concerning compelled medical treatment of pregnant women.
Rossiter GP
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1995 May; 35(2):132-8. PubMed ID: 7677674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A new threat to pregnant women's autonomy.
Johnsen D
Hastings Cent Rep; 1987; 17(4):33-40. PubMed ID: 3667248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. New medical technology: a chance to reexamine court-ordered medical procedures during pregnancy.
Ouellette A
Albany Law Rev; 1994; 57(3):927-60. PubMed ID: 11652868
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center.
U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
Wests Fed Suppl; 1999; 66():1247-57. PubMed ID: 11868571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.
Sayeed SA
Pediatrics; 2005 Oct; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. In re A.C.
District of Columbia. Court of Appeals, en banc
Atl Report; 1990 Apr; 573():1235-64. PubMed ID: 11648191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. In re A.C.
District of Columbia. Court of Appeals
Atl Report; 1987 Nov; 533():611-7. PubMed ID: 11648174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Criminal liability of physicians: an encroachment on the abortion right?
Barber RA
Am Crim Law Rev; 1981; 18(4):591-615. PubMed ID: 11655468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Abortion: rights or technicalities? A comparison of Roe v. Wade with the abortion decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court.
Brown HO
Hum Life Rev; 1975; 1(3):60-74. PubMed ID: 11662181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
