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

965 related items for PubMed ID: 16211748

  • 1. 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]

  • 2. Hippocrates to HIPAA: a foundation for a federal physician-patient privilege.
    Ruebner R, Reis LA.
    Temple Law Rev; 2004; 77(3):505-75. PubMed ID: 17066561
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Privacy rights in personal information: HIPAA and the privacy gap between fundamental privacy rights and medical information.
    Davis KB.
    John Marshall J Comput Inf Law; 2001; 19(4):535-55. PubMed ID: 16331877
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Privacy in personal medical information: a diagnosis.
    Newman S.
    Univ Fla Law Rev; 1981; 33(3):394-424. PubMed ID: 11649692
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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]

  • 7. Privacy: drug use reporting requirements unconstitutional.
    Brown DC.
    Univ Dayton Law Rev; 1977; 2(1):127-36. PubMed ID: 11661516
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Evolving constitutional privacy doctrines affecting healthcare enterprises.
    Krulwich AS, McDonald BL.
    Food Drug Cosmet Law J; 2000; 55(4):491-516. PubMed ID: 16493801
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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]

  • 10. Should there be a psychotherapist privilege in military courts-martial?
    Hayden DL.
    Mil Law Rev; 1989; 123():31-107. PubMed ID: 11660232
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Health and human services' privacy proposal: a failed attempt at health information privacy protection.
    Zoeller B.
    Brandeis Law J; 2002; 40(4):1065-84. PubMed ID: 12705241
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Protecting the privacy of the absent patient: Rudnick v. Superior Court.
    Tarr RW.
    Hastings Law J; 1975 Sep; 27(1):99-135. PubMed ID: 11664510
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Medical records and your privacy: developing federal legislation to protect patient privacy rights.
    Hussong SJ.
    Am J Law Med; 2000 Sep; 26(4):453-74. PubMed ID: 11209650
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Issues impacting health care in the new millennium: privacy, electronic medical records, and the internet.
    Torrey CO.
    J Nurs Law; 2001 Mar; 7(4):7-13. PubMed ID: 12545990
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Prescribing privacy: the uncertain role of the physician in the protection of patient privacy.
    Gellman RM.
    North Carol Law Rev; 1984 Jan; 62(2):255-94. PubMed ID: 16100795
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Evidence law--the psychotherapist-patient privilege in federal courts.
    Cerveny K, Kent MJ.
    Notre Dame Law Rev; 1984 Jan; 59(3):791-816. PubMed ID: 11658789
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Toward a First Amendment theory of doctor-patient discourse and the right to receive unbiased medical advice.
    Berg P.
    Boston Univ Law Rev; 1994 Mar; 74(2):201-66. PubMed ID: 11659979
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Justices uphold psychotherapy privacy rights.
    Greenhouse L.
    N Y Times Web; 1996 Jun 14; ():A1, A25. PubMed ID: 11648020
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Misconceived laws: the irrationality of parental involvement requirements for contraception.
    Arons JR.
    William Mary Law Rev; 2000 Mar 14; 41(3):1093-131. PubMed ID: 16329212
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 49.