Responses

Download PDFPDF

Communication
So near yet so far: why won’t the UK prescribe medical cannabis?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Resistance to evidence other than RCTs is fuelled by senior clinicans' financial self- interest
    • Peter J Reynolds, Medical Journalist and President of CLEAR CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform

    There are no case reports anywhere in the world of patients receiving cannabis under medical supervision coming to any significant harm. There is no doubt that cannabis is safe as a medicine. Those opposed to it, usually with vested financial interests, are trying to undermine use of CBPMs with spurious claims of harms caused by smoking cannabis in its most potent form as a recreational drug.

    The senior clinicians responsible for drafting the guidelines, from the Royal Colleges and other professional bodies, are the same people who have failed to provide up-to-date medical education on the endocannabinoid system, through which cannabis exterts its therapeutic effects. These same people are also responsible for running and supervising the clinical trials that pharmaceutical companies use to prove the safety and efficacy of their new products. For this they receive very substantial fees and long-running sponsorship for their institutions. The conflict of interest is obvious, yet is being entirely overlooked.

    I fully support Prof Nutt's analysis but suggest that senior clinicians responsible for drafting guidelines do not wish to consider other forms of evidence as they are not in their financial self-interest.

    In summary there is no evdience of any harm in the medically supervised use of CBPMs and substantial evidence of great benefit. Failing to prescribe in such circumstances is unethical, irresponsible and may actually be 'doing harm...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.