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.
176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 950711)
1. Informed consent: recent changes in the law. Boyarsky S J Urol; 1976 Aug; 116(2):226-7. PubMed ID: 950711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Informed consent: recent changes in the law. Boyarsky S Trans Am Assoc Genitourin Surg; 1975; 67():29-30. PubMed ID: 1233806 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Informed consent does not demand full disclosure of risks. Brahams D Lancet; 1983 Jul; 2(8340):58. PubMed ID: 11644260 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Informed consent and the disclosure of risks of treatment: the Supreme Court of Canada decides. Dillon JR Bioethics Q; 1981; 3(3-4):156-62. PubMed ID: 11649479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The surgeon's duty to warn of risks: transatlantic approach rejected by Court of Appeal. Brahams D Lancet; 1984 Mar; 1(8376):578-9. PubMed ID: 11644281 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Why the British courts rejected the American doctrine of informed consent (and what British physicians should do about it). Annas GJ Am J Public Health; 1984 Nov; 74(11):1286-8. PubMed ID: 6496827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Halley v. Birbiglia. Massachusetts. Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester Mass Rep Mass Supreme Judic Court; 1983 Dec; 390():540-50. PubMed ID: 12041108 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rogers v. Whitaker and informed consent in Australia: a fair dinkum duty of disclosure. Chalmers D; Schwartz R Med Law Rev; 1993; 1(2):139-59. PubMed ID: 11660490 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Hills v. Potter. Great Britain. England. Queen's Bench Division All Engl Law Rep; 1983 May; [1983] 3():716-29. PubMed ID: 11648156 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. California Supreme Court expands the informed consent doctine; physicians have a duty to obtain an informed refusal: Truman v. Thomas. Cluff CA Brigh Young Univ Law Rev; 1980; 1980(4):933-47. PubMed ID: 11655722 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Informed consent and the material risk standard: a modest proposal. Morton JE Pac Law J; 1981 Jul; 12(4):915-36. PubMed ID: 11658351 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Hartke v. McKelway. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Fed Report; 1983 May; 707():1544-59. PubMed ID: 11648480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The performance of invasive procedures by HIV-infected doctors: the duty to disclose under the informed consent doctrine. DeBarge MW Conn Law Rev; 1993; 25(3):991-1025. PubMed ID: 11659692 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Torts--medical malpractice--Court of Appeals of Maryland adopts doctrine of informed consent. Penhallegon JR Univ Baltimore Law Rev; 1978; 8(1):114-29. PubMed ID: 11664978 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Informed consent: risk disclosure and the Canadian approach. Jazvac WP Univ Tor Fac Law Rev; 1978; 36(2):191-208. PubMed ID: 11664977 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Medico-legal bulletin number 250: Doctrine of informed consent in malpractice law. Camp RC Med Leg Bull; 1974 Feb; 23(2):1-6. PubMed ID: 4846841 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The evolution of the doctrine of informed consent. Georgia Law Rev; 1978; 12(3):581-611. PubMed ID: 11664967 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparative study of the law relating to the physician's duty to obtain the patient's "informed consent" to medical treatment in England and California. Churchward AB Conn J Int Law; 1990; 5(2):483-563. PubMed ID: 11659375 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]