These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9180527)

  • 1. Supreme Court protects communications in psychotherapy.
    Cesario FJ
    J Law Med Ethics; 1996; 24(4):388-9. PubMed ID: 9180527
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Jaffee v. Redmond: psychotherapist-patient privilege in the federal courts.
    Appelbaum PS
    Psychiatr Serv; 1996 Oct; 47(10):1033-4, 1052. PubMed ID: 8890329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Jaffee v. Redmond: making the courts a tool of injustice?
    Chan KW
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1997; 25(3):383-9. PubMed ID: 9323663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The ethical and legal implications of Jaffee v Redmond and the HIPAA medical privacy rule for psychotherapy and general psychiatry.
    Mosher PW; Swire PP
    Psychiatr Clin North Am; 2002 Sep; 25(3):575-84, vi-vii. PubMed ID: 12232971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Rationales for the confidentiality of psychotherapist-patient communications: testimonial privilege and the Constitution.
    Courville CP
    Houst Law Rev; 1998; 35(1):187-226. PubMed ID: 14628847
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Correction to "Empirical support for the United States Supreme Court's protection of the psychotherapist-patient privilege".
    Marsh JE
    Ethics Behav; 2004; 14(2):197-9. PubMed ID: 15835047
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Justices uphold psychotherapy privacy rights.
    Greenhouse L
    N Y Times Web; 1996 Jun; ():A1, A25. PubMed ID: 11648020
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. "I'm your therapist, you can tell me anything": the Supreme Court confirm psychotherapist-patient privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond.
    Klein JS
    De Paul Law Rev; 1998; 47(3):701-41. PubMed ID: 14628783
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Beyond Jaffee v. Redmond: should the federal courts recognize a right to physician-patient confidentiality?
    Silver SA
    Ohio State Law J; 1998; 58(5):1809-66. PubMed ID: 16211748
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Psychotherapy and disclosure: recent court decisions.
    Furlong A; Lefebvre MS
    Can J Psychiatry; 1998 Sep; 43(7):731-6. PubMed ID: 9773223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The federal psychotherapist-patient privilege, the purported "dangerous patient" exception, and its impact on African American access to mental health services.
    Johnson AN
    Howard Law J; 2005; 48(3):1025-51. PubMed ID: 17063601
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Supreme Court's decision to recognize a psychotherapist privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996): the meaning of "experience and the role of "reason" under Federal Rule of Evidence 501.
    Amann DM; Imwinkelried EJ
    Univ Cincinnati Law Rev; 1997; 65(4):1019-49. PubMed ID: 16086528
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Marching to the beat of a different drummer: is military law and mental health out-of-step after Jaffee v. Redmond?
    Zanotti BJ; Becker RA
    Air Force Law Rev; 1997; 41():1-82. PubMed ID: 16211752
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Empirical support for the United States Supreme Court's protection of the psychotherapist-patient privilege.
    Marsh JE
    Ethics Behav; 2003; 13(4):385-400. PubMed ID: 15000103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Opposition to law officers having unfettered access to medical records.
    Skolnick AA
    JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(4):257-9. PubMed ID: 9450693
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Confidentiality of mental health records in federal courts: the path blazed by Sabree v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joinders of America, Local No. 33.
    Ruschioni SL
    New Engl Law Rev; 2004; 38(4):923-37. PubMed ID: 16482691
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ohio's patient-physician privilege: whether planned parenthood is a protected party.
    O'Neill M
    J Law Health; 2002-2003; 17(2):297-325. PubMed ID: 15853129
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Privacy, consent, and the electronic mental health record: The Person vs. the System.
    Clemens NA
    J Psychiatr Pract; 2012 Jan; 18(1):46-50. PubMed ID: 22261983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Online without a net: physician-patient communication by electronic mail.
    Spielberg AR
    Am J Law Med; 1999; 25(2-3):267-95. PubMed ID: 10476331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Privacy, confidentiality, and privilege in psychotherapeutic relationships.
    Smith-Bell M; Winslade WJ
    Am J Orthopsychiatry; 1994 Apr; 64(2):180-93. PubMed ID: 8037228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.