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

173 related items for PubMed ID: 3344019

  • 1. Neonatologists judge the "Baby Doe" regulations.
    Kopelman LM, Irons TG, Kopelman AE.
    N Engl J Med; 1988 Mar 17; 318(11):677-83. PubMed ID: 3344019
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: a cautionary note on normative neonatal practice.
    Sayeed SA.
    Pediatrics; 2005 Oct 17; 116(4):e576-85. PubMed ID: 16199687
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The Baby Doe regulations: views from perinatal social workers.
    York GY, Gallarno RM.
    J Perinatol; 1990 Sep 17; 10(3):312-6. PubMed ID: 2145406
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5. Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
    Annas GJ.
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1986 Aug 17; 16(4):29-31. PubMed ID: 3744798
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 7. The ballad of Baby Doe: parental discretion or medical neglect?
    Victoroff MS.
    Prim Care; 1986 Jun 17; 13(2):271-83. PubMed ID: 2941814
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Severely handicapped infants with life-threatening conditions: federal intrusions into the decision not to treat.
    Huefner DS.
    Am J Law Med; 1986 Jun 17; 12(2):171-205. PubMed ID: 2964778
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Rejecting the Baby Doe rules and defending a "negative" analysis of the Best Interests Standard.
    Kopelman LM.
    J Med Philos; 2005 Aug 17; 30(4):331-52. PubMed ID: 16029986
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 12. Are the 21-year-old Baby Doe rules misunderstood or mistaken?
    Kopelman LM.
    Pediatrics; 2005 Mar 17; 115(3):797-802. PubMed ID: 15741390
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Civil rights and regulatory wrongs: the Reagan administration and the medical treatment of handicapped infants.
    Brown LD.
    J Health Polit Policy Law; 1986 Mar 17; 11(2):231-54. PubMed ID: 3745838
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Extreme prematurity and parental rights after Baby Doe.
    Robertson JA.
    Hastings Cent Rep; 2004 Mar 17; 34(4):32-9. PubMed ID: 15379100
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Neonatologists and bioethics after Baby Doe.
    Carter BS.
    J Perinatol; 1993 Mar 17; 13(2):144-50. PubMed ID: 8515309
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Federal regulations and neonatologists' views on care of seriously ill infants: changes over time.
    Polidoro E, Weintraub AS, Guttmann KF.
    Pediatr Res; 2022 Oct 17; 92(4):1059-1063. PubMed ID: 35641550
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Baby Doe redux: doctors as child abusers.
    Annas GJ.
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1983 Oct 17; 13(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 6643033
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.