Regulating assisted reproduction

Hasting Center Report

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 26-27

  Dresser, Rebecca ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH;

CALIFORNIA; CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (U.S.); GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 0034331058     PISSN: 00930334     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3528450     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. California Senate Bill No. 1630, http://www.sen.ca.gov. Information on successive drafts of the bill, vote tallies, and legislative analysis is available on this Web site.
2. Governor Gray Davis, Press Release, 30 September 2000, http://www.governor.ca.gov.
3. New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Analysis and Recommendations for Policy (Albany, N.Y.: Health Education Service, 1998).
4. Institute for Science, Law, and Technology Working Group, "ART into Science: Regulation of Fertility Techniques," Science 281 (1998): 651-52.
5. Judith F. Daar, "Regulating Reproductive Technologies: Panacea or Paper Tiger?" Houston Law Review 34 (1997): 609-64.