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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

769 related items for PubMed ID: 11658614

  • 1. The legislative response to Infant Doe.
    Kuzma AL.
    Indiana Law J; ; 59(3):377-416. PubMed ID: 11658614
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Infant Doe and Baby Jane Doe: medical treatment of the handicapped newborn.
    Horan DJ, Balch BJ.
    Linacre Q; 1985 Feb; 52(1):45-76. PubMed ID: 11651855
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. "New" rights for handicapped newborns: Baby Doe and beyond.
    Phillips CA.
    Calif West Law Rev; 1985 May; 22(1):127-58. PubMed ID: 11658804
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Quality of life, sanctity of creation: palliative or apotheosis?
    Smith GP.
    Neb Law Rev; 1984 May; 63(4):709-40. PubMed ID: 11652479
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Balancing wishes with wisdom: sustaining infant life.
    Wakefield-Fisher M.
    Nurs Health Care; 1987 Nov; 8(9):517-20. PubMed ID: 11644099
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. The Supreme Court and Baby Jane Doe.
    Drinan RF.
    America (NY); 1986 Mar 06; 154(9):180-2. PubMed ID: 11658666
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Treatment dilemmas for imperiled newborns: why quality of life counts.
    Rhoden NK.
    South Calif Law Rev; 1985 Sep 06; 58(6):1283-347. PubMed ID: 11660412
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Withdrawal of life-support in the newborn: whose baby is it?
    Clark FI.
    Southwest Univ Law Rev; 1993 Sep 06; 23(1):1-46. PubMed ID: 11659817
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Model Procedures for Child Protective Service Agencies Responding to Reports of Withholding Medically Indicated Treatment from Disabled Infants with Life-Threatening Conditions.
    Nicholson EB, Horowitz RM, Parry J, American Bar Association. Commission on the Mentally Disabled, American Bar Association. National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection.
    Ment Phys Disabil Law Rep; 1986 Sep 06; 10(3):221-49. PubMed ID: 11651933
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Baby Doe's new guardians: federal policy brings nontreatment decisions out of hiding.
    Born MA.
    KY Law J; 1986 Sep 06; 75(3):659-75. PubMed ID: 11651897
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. The care of defective neonates, ethics committees and federal intervention.
    Riga PJ.
    Linacre Q; 1984 Aug 06; 51(3):255-76. PubMed ID: 11649572
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 39.