The Baby Doe regulations: governmental intervention in neonatal rescue medicine.
作者信息
Annas G J
出版信息
Am J Public Health. 1984 Jun;74(6):618-20. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.6.618.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The Baby Doe regulations: governmental intervention in neonatal rescue medicine.《婴儿多伊法规》：政府对新生儿急救医学的干预
Am J Public Health. 1984 Jun;74(6):618-20. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.6.618.
2
The Baby Doe regulations: another view of change.《婴儿多伊法规》：变革的另一种视角。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1986 Apr;16(2):12-3. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-146x.1986.tb03727.x.
3
'Baby Doe' rulings-review and comment.“宝贝多伊”裁决——回顾与评论
West J Med. 1984 Feb;140(2):303-7.
4
The antiabortion movement and Baby Jane Doe.反堕胎运动与无名女婴简
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1986 Summer;11(2):255-69. doi: 10.1215/03616878-11-2-255.
5
Withholding treatment from Baby Doe: from discrimination to child abuse.
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1985 Winter;63(1):18-51.
6
HHS preparing to issue new Baby Doe rules.美国卫生与公众服务部准备发布新的《婴儿多伊规则》。
Science. 1983 Sep 23;221(4617):1269-70. doi: 10.1126/science.6612339.
7
United States: treatment of severely handicapped infants.
Lancet. 1983 Oct 22;2(8356):960-1.
8
Checkmating the Baby Doe regulations.
Hastings Cent Rep. 1986 Aug;16(4):29-31.
9
Civil rights and regulatory wrongs: the Reagan administration and the medical treatment of handicapped infants.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1986 Summer;11(2):231-54. doi: 10.1215/03616878-11-2-231.
10
The future of Baby Doe.
New York Rev Books. 1984 Mar 1;31(3):17-22.
引用本文的文献
1
Ethics committees in neonatal care: substantive protection or procedural diversion?新生儿护理中的伦理委员会：实质保护还是程序转移？
Am J Public Health. 1984 Aug;74(8):843-5. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.8.843.
2
The case of Baby Jane Doe: child abuse or unlawful Federal intervention?无名女婴简的案例：虐待儿童还是联邦政府的非法干预？
Am J Public Health. 1984 Jul;74(7):727-9. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.7.727.
本文引用的文献
1
Baby Doe redux: doctors as child abusers.“宝贝多伊”事件重演：医生成了虐童者。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1983 Oct;13(5):26-7.
2
Disconnecting the Baby Doe hotline.停用“宝贝多伊”热线。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1983 Jun;13(3):14-6.
Zotero 插件