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.
2. Who shall decide when doctors disagree? A review of the legal development of informed consent and the implications of proposed lay review of human experimentation. Ratnoff MF. Case West Reserve Law Rev; 1975; 25(3):472-532. PubMed ID: 11661164 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Psychosurgery in Massachusetts: a task force report. Stone AA. Mass Journal Ment Health; 1975; 5(3):26-54. PubMed ID: 11664587 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Medical and psychological experimentation on California prisoners. Herch F, Flower R. Univ Calif Davis Law Rev; 1974; 7():351-84. PubMed ID: 11661107 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The burgeoning law of medical experimentation involving human subjects. Bryant LE. John Marshall J Pract Proced; 1974; 8(1):19-51. PubMed ID: 11663465 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Special informed consent requirements are included in protocol review procedures. Maloney DM. Hum Res Rep; 1995 Jul; 10(7):1-2. PubMed ID: 11654274 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Protection of human subjects. United States. Code Fed Regul Shipping; 1982 Oct 01; Part 46, Sections 46.101 to 46.306():. PubMed ID: 11660819 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Commission says institutional review boards should change procedures now. Maloney DM. Hum Res Rep; 1999 Jan 01; 14(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 11657555 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Federal investigation concludes that institutional review boards are in trouble. Maloney DM. Hum Res Rep; 1998 Aug 01; 13(8):1-2. PubMed ID: 11657190 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. National commission proposes numerous new regulations of institutional review boards. Maloney DM. Hum Res Rep; 1998 Oct 01; 13(10):1-2. PubMed ID: 11657739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]