350 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6730486)
1. 'Baby Doe' rulings-review and comment.
Britton JR
West J Med; 1984 Feb; 140(2):303-7. PubMed ID: 6730486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Baby Jane Doe ruling upheld; suit fails.
Curran M
Ob Gyn News; 1983 Dec 15-31; 18(24):8. PubMed ID: 11653509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 'Baby Doe'--a medical ethical issue.
Lang GC
West J Med; 1985 Jun; 142(6):837-41. PubMed ID: 4024642
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
Annas GJ
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Aug; 16(4):29-31. PubMed ID: 3744798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Withholding treatment from Baby Doe: from discrimination to child abuse.
Rhoden NK; Arras JD
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc; 1985; 63(1):18-51. PubMed ID: 3158840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical groups' suit seeks to put legal padlock on 'Baby Doe' reg.
Gibbons DL
Med World News; 1984 Apr; 25(7):19, 23. PubMed ID: 10267469
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn.
Horan DJ; Balch BJ
Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 'Baby Doe' proposed reg suffers setback in court.
Med World News; 1983 Dec; 24(23):27. PubMed ID: 11645566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Health care groups favor local 'Baby Doe' review.
Med World News; 1983 Sep; 24(18):9. PubMed ID: 11645497
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Infant care review committees: an effective approach to the Baby Doe dilemma?
Shapiro RS; Barthel R
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):827-62. PubMed ID: 11655857
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Another court challenge predicted following revised 'Baby Doe' rule.
Med World News; 1983 Jul; 24(14):54, 59. PubMed ID: 11645668
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Should imperfect infants survive? The 'Baby Doe' regs.
Baer S
Natl Rev; 1983 Sep; 35(17):1069, 1092-3. PubMed ID: 16440474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 'Baby Doe' compromise approved.
Med World News; 1984 Oct; 25(19):14. PubMed ID: 11645529
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A neonatologist looks at the baby Doe Rule: ethical decisions by edict.
Berseth CL
Pediatrics; 1983 Sep; 72(3):428-9. PubMed ID: 6889050
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Confusion over the language of the Baby Doe regulations.
Bermel J
Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Dec; 16(6):2. PubMed ID: 11643944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The antiabortion movement and Baby Jane Doe.
Paige C; Karnofsky EB
J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986; 11(2):255-69. PubMed ID: 3745839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Backsliding on "Baby Doe"?
Med World News; 1985 Mar; 26(5):11, 15. PubMed ID: 10317572
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The case of Baby Jane Doe. 2. Baby Jane Doe in the courts.
Steinbock B
Hastings Cent Rep; 1984 Feb; 14(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 6232243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
