Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 118

1.

It's not the growth attenuation, it's the sterilization!

Lantos J.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):45-6. doi: 10.1080/15265160903441079. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077336
2.

Growth attenuation: good intentions, bad decision.

Asch A, Stubblefield A.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):46-8. doi: 10.1080/15265160903441111. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077337
3.

The limits of parental authority?

Lyons B.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):50-2. doi: 10.1080/15265160903460871. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077339
4.

Putting law in the room.

Ouellette A.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):48-50. doi: 10.1080/15265160903461010. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077338
5.

Ashley's interests were not violated because she does not have the necessary interests.

Spriggs M.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):52-4. doi: 10.1080/15265160903460863. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077340
6.

Ashley revisited: a response to the peer commentaries.

Diekema DS, Fost N.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):W4-6. doi: 10.1080/15265160903493021. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077323
7.

Revisiting the relevance of the social model of disability.

Goering S.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):54-5. doi: 10.1080/15265160903460913. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077341
8.

What role should moral intuitions play when dealing with children?

Hester DM.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):56. doi: 10.1080/15265160903460939. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077342
9.

What took so long? The disability critique recognized.

Lillie T.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):57-8. doi: 10.1080/15265160903460954. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077343
10.

Ethics or advocacy?

Sobsey D.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):59-60. doi: 10.1080/15265160903460962. No abstract available.

PMID:
20077344
11.

Ashley revisited: a response to the critics.

Diekema DS, Fost N.

Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jan;10(1):30-44. doi: 10.1080/15265160903469336.

PMID:
20077335
12.

The case: the "Ashley Treatment" revisited. Commentary: Who should take on the responsibility of decision making?

Athanassoulis N.

Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2010 Jul;19(3):413-5. doi: 10.1017/S0963180110000228. No abstract available.

PMID:
20507690
13.

The case: the "Ashley Treatment" revisited. Commentary: Calibrating the moral compass.

Holzman IR.

Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2010 Jul;19(3):411-3. doi: 10.1017/S0963180110000216. No abstract available.

PMID:
20507689
14.

The case: the "Ashley Treatment" revisited. Commentary: What kind of fire or whose feet?

Paris JJ, Moore MP Jr.

Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2010 Jul;19(3):407-11. doi: 10.1017/S0963180110000204. No abstract available.

PMID:
20507688
15.

The case: the "Ashley Treatment" revisited. Commentary: Weighing the balance.

Goldworth A.

Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2010 Jul;19(3):415-6. doi: 10.1017/S096318011000023X. No abstract available.

PMID:
20507691
16.

The Ashley treatment: two viewpoints.

Shannon SE, Savage TA.

Pediatr Nurs. 2007 Mar-Apr;33(2):175-8. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
17542240
17.

Agency, duties and the "Ashley treatment".

Tan N, Brassington I.

J Med Ethics. 2009 Nov;35(11):658-61. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.029934.

PMID:
19880700
19.

Parental reasoning about growth attenuation therapy: report of a single-case study.

Kerruish N, McMillan JR.

J Med Ethics. 2015 Sep;41(9):745-9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101913. Epub 2015 Apr 9.

PMID:
25858291
20.

The Ashley Treatment: best interests, convenience, and parental decision-making.

Liao SM, Savulescu J, Sheehan M.

Hastings Cent Rep. 2007 Mar-Apr;37(2):16-20. No abstract available.

PMID:
17474341

Supplemental Content

Support Center