140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8961116)
1. Women, forced caesareans and antenatal responsibilities.
Draper H
J Med Ethics; 1996 Dec; 22(6):327-33. PubMed ID: 8961116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. When caesarean section operations imposed by a court are justified.
Kluge EH
J Med Ethics; 1988 Dec; 14(4):206-11. PubMed ID: 3236350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Court-ordered cesarean sections. A judicial standard for resolving the conflict between fetal interests and maternal rights.
Noble-Allgire AM
J Leg Med; 1989 Mar; 10(1):211-49. PubMed ID: 2651546
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. In re A.C.
Bourke LH
Issues Law Med; 1990; 6(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 2279918
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The pregnant woman and the good Samaritan: can a woman have a duty to undergo a caesarean section?
Scott R
Oxf J Leg Stud; 2000; 20(3):407-36. PubMed ID: 12452142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Pregnant woman vs. fetus: a dilemma for hospital ethics committees.
Swartz M
Camb Q Healthc Ethics; 1992; 1(1):51-62. PubMed ID: 1342849
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. An Orwellian scenario: court ordered caesarean section and women's autonomy.
Cahill H
Nurs Ethics; 1999 Nov; 6(6):494-505. PubMed ID: 10696195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Lives at stake: how to respond to a woman's refusal of cesarean surgery when she risks losing her child or her life.
Tauer CA
Health Prog; 1992 Sep; 73(3):18, 20-27. PubMed ID: 11652082
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Fetal therapy and surgery. Fetal rights versus maternal obligations.
Rosner F; Bennett AJ; Cassell EJ; Farnsworth PB; Landolt AB; Loeb L; Numann PJ; Ona FV; Risemberg HM; Sechzer PH
N Y State J Med; 1989 Feb; 89(2):80-4. PubMed ID: 2710438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Forcible caesarean: a new direction in British maternity care? Thoughts on the case of Mrs S.
Crafter H
Nurs Ethics; 1994 Mar; 1(1):53-5. PubMed ID: 7828056
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. In re A.C.: a court-ordered cesarean becomes precedent for nonconsensual organ harvesting.
Sturgess RH
Nova Law Rev; 1989; 13(2):649-69. PubMed ID: 11650356
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Commentary on Thomson's violinist and conjoined twins.
Davis JK
Camb Q Healthc Ethics; 1999; 8(4):435-9. PubMed ID: 11645184
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Cesareans and Samaritans.
Rhoden NK
Law Med Health Care; 1987; 15(3):118-25. PubMed ID: 3695574
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A serious obligation Sharpening a moral argument.
Pellegrino ED; Walter JJ; Tauer CA
Health Prog; 1992 Dec; 73(10):6-7. PubMed ID: 11645751
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Abortion logic and paternal responsibilities: one more look at Judith Thomson's "A defense of abortion.
Pavlischek KJ
Public Aff Q; 1993 Oct; 7(4):341-61. PubMed ID: 11656264
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. In Re A.C.--an affirmation of ACOG Committee Opinion Number 55: maternal-fetal conflict.
Allen AE
Womens Health Issues; 1990; 1(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 2136301
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. From cannibalism to caesareans: two conceptions of fundamental rights.
Hasnas J
Northwest Univ Law Rev; 1995; 89(3):900-41. PubMed ID: 11660128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Maternal/fetal rights: two views.
Justin RG; Rosner F
J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972); 1989; 44(3):90-5. PubMed ID: 2723319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
