158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8262766)
1. Facts, values, and expert testimony.
Capron AM
Hastings Cent Rep; 1993; 23(5):26-8. PubMed ID: 8262766
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Judicial decisionmaking in the age of biotechnology.
Smith GP
Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy; 1999; 13(1):93-120. PubMed ID: 15584150
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Ethics expert testimony: against the skeptics.
Agich GJ; Spielman BJ
J Med Philos; 1997 Aug; 22(4):381-403. PubMed ID: 9309551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Where law and bioethics meet...and where they don't!!
Sullivan MC; Reynolds DF
Univ Detroit Mercy Law Rev; 1998; 75(3):607-20. PubMed ID: 12627575
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Proffering bioethicists as experts.
Mishkin DB
Judges J; 1997; 36(3):50-51, 88-89. PubMed ID: 11656823
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Judicial gatekeeping and the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony.
Merlino ML; Murray CI; Richardson JT
Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):187-206. PubMed ID: 18344168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Is there any indication for ethics evidence? An argument for the admissibility of some expert bioethics testimony.
Nelson LJ
J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):248-63. PubMed ID: 16083084
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Expert testimony by ethicists: what should be the norm?
Imwinkelried EJ
J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):198-221. PubMed ID: 16083080
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Introduction: bioethics in court.
Rich BA
J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):194-7. PubMed ID: 16083079
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The future of bioethics testimony: guidelines for determining qualifications, reliability, and helpfulness.
Spielman B; Agich G
San Diego Law Rev; 1999; 36(4):1043-75. PubMed ID: 12449932
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Imwinkelried's argument for normative ethical testimony.
Barnes DW
J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):234-41. PubMed ID: 16083082
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Medical ethics in the courtroom: a reappraisal.
Sharpe VA; Pellegrino ED
J Med Philos; 1997 Aug; 22(4):373-9. PubMed ID: 9309550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Transition from fetus to infant: a problem for law and ethics.
Jonsen AR
Hastings Law J; 1986 May; 37(5):697-701. PubMed ID: 11655854
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Admissible expert testimony and summary judgment: reconciling Celotex and Daubert after Kochert.
Razavi B
J Leg Med; 2008; 29(3):307-43. PubMed ID: 18726758
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Moral discourse, bioethics, and the law.
Schneider CE
Hastings Cent Rep; 1996; 26(6):37-9. PubMed ID: 8970801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. US Supreme Court decisions, expert testimony, and implant dentistry.
Flanagan D
J Oral Implantol; 2002; 28(2):97-8. PubMed ID: 12498453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. America as pattern and problem.
Schneider CE
Hastings Cent Rep; 2000; 30(1):20-1. PubMed ID: 10742943
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Trial and error: the Supreme Court's philosophy of science.
Haack S
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S66-73. PubMed ID: 16030341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Is bioethics broke?: on the idea of ethics and law "catching up" with technology.
Shapiro MH
Indiana Law Rev; 1999; 33(1):17-162. PubMed ID: 12680378
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Bioethics testimony: untangling the strands and testing their reliability.
Spielman BJ
J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):222-33. PubMed ID: 16083081
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
