134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7950149)
1. The tyranny of technology: the case of Baby K.
Benesch K
Trends Health Care Law Ethics; 1994; 9(1):47-8. PubMed ID: 7950149
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Baby K: protected at law.
Bopp J; Coleson RE
Trends Health Care Law Ethics; 1994; 9(1):7-12. PubMed ID: 7950150
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. In re Baby K.
U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
Fed Suppl; 1993 Jul; 832():1022-31. PubMed ID: 11648613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Medicine without end?
Caplan AL
Trends Health Care Law Ethics; 1994; 9(1):37-8. PubMed ID: 7950144
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Anencephalic newborns: legal and ethical comments regarding the matter of Baby "K".
Fry-Revere S
Pediatr Nurs; 1994; 20(3):283-6. PubMed ID: 8008479
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. When a patient demands what health care providers deem foolish: medical-ethical analysis of the case of Baby K.
Peabody JL
Clin Ethics Rep; 1993; 7(4):1-12. PubMed ID: 11653093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. In re Baby K.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Fed Report; 1994 Feb; 16():590-9. PubMed ID: 11648610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A legal challenge to the refusal to provide inappropriate treatment: the case of Baby K.
Watson SB
Clin Ethics Rep; 1994; 8(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 11652775
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Anencephalic baby's right to life.
McCarthy M
Lancet; 1993 Oct; 342(8876):919. PubMed ID: 11643245
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Hospital appeals decision ordering treatment for baby missing a brain.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1993 Sep; ():A10. PubMed ID: 11646990
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Court order to treat baby with partial brain prompts debate on costs and ethics.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1994 Feb; ():20. PubMed ID: 11647018
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Talking about Baby K's fate.
Scofield GR
Trends Health Care Law Ethics; 1994; 9(1):13-6, 46. PubMed ID: 7950137
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Infant resuscitation, a US/UK divide.
Miller FH
Lancet; 1994 Jun; 343(8913):1584-5. PubMed ID: 7911914
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Child abuse by whom? -- Parental rights and judicial competency determinations: the Baby K and Baby Terry cases.
Bopp J; Coleson RE
Ohio North Univ Law Rev; 1994; 20(4):821-46. PubMed ID: 11652997
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Baby K's mother gives her the prayer that many deny she has.
Tousignant M; Miller B
Washington Post; 1994 Oct; ():A1, A8-9. PubMed ID: 11647052
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Ten bad reasons for not treating Baby K.
Fost N
Trends Health Care Law Ethics; 1994; 9(1):17-8, 22. PubMed ID: 7950138
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Commentary: what is really at stake in Baby K? A response to Ellen Flannery.
Clayton EW
J Law Med Ethics; 1995; 23(1):13-4. PubMed ID: 11644715
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. One advocate's viewpoint: conflicts and tensions in the Baby K case.
Flannery EJ
J Law Med Ethics; 1995; 23(1):7-12; discussion 13-4. PubMed ID: 7627307
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. In re Baby K.
Rhodes AM
MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs; 1995; 20(5):251. PubMed ID: 7476007
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Two American hospitals in dilemma over brain death.
Charatan FB
BMJ; 1994 Mar; 308(6929):618. PubMed ID: 11644525
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
