145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8008547)
1. Intensive care treatment decisions: the roots of our confusion.
Clark FI
Pediatrics; 1994 Jul; 94(1):98-101. PubMed ID: 8008547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. A moment in human development: legal protection, ethical standards and social policy on the selective non-treatment of handicapped neonates.
Gostin L
Am J Law Med; 1985; 11(1):31-78. PubMed ID: 3832944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. When love and abuse are not mutually exclusive: the need for government intervention.
Obernberger S
Issues Law Med; 1997; 12(4):355-81. PubMed ID: 9114605
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Child abuse law.
Frader J
Pediatrics; 1995 Mar; 95(3):454-5. PubMed ID: 7862495
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Baby Doe, Congress and the states: challenging the federal treatment standard for impaired infants.
Newman SA
Am J Law Med; 1989; 15(1):1-60. PubMed ID: 2764010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Withdrawal of treatment for minors in a persistent vegetative state: parents should decide.
Massie AM
Ariz Law Rev; 1993; 35(1):173-218. PubMed ID: 12645558
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Disabled newborns and the federal child abuse amendments: tenuous protection.
Smith SR
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):765-825. PubMed ID: 11655856
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Medical treatment for older persons and persons with disabilities: 1990 developments. National Legal Center Staff.
Issues Law Med; 1991; 6(4):341-60. PubMed ID: 1828064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Critically ill newborns and the law. The American experience.
Merrick JC
J Leg Med; 1995 Jun; 16(2):189-209. PubMed ID: 7636402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The treatment of handicapped newborns: is there a role for law?
Burt RA
Issues Law Med; 1986 Jan; 1(4):279-91. PubMed ID: 11651814
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Severely handicapped infants with life-threatening conditions: federal intrusions into the decision not to treat.
Huefner DS
Am J Law Med; 1986; 12(2):171-205. PubMed ID: 2964778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Baby Doe: nothing to fear but fear itself.
Barnett TJ
J Perinatol; 1990 Sep; 10(3):307-11. PubMed ID: 2145405
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [The origin of informed consent].
Mallardi V
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital; 2005 Oct; 25(5):312-27. PubMed ID: 16602332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Decision-making authority and substance abuse treatment for adolescents: a survey of state laws.
Lallemont T; Mastroianni A; Wickizer TM
J Adolesc Health; 2009 Apr; 44(4):323-34. PubMed ID: 19306790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Medico-legal and ethical problems associated with treatment of children born with congenital malformations.
Foo KB
Singapore Med J; 1994 Apr; 35(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 7524162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The care of defective neonates, ethics committees and federal intervention.
Riga PJ
Linacre Q; 1984 Aug; 51(3):255-76. PubMed ID: 11649572
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
