Abstract
Lack of guidance and regulation for authorizing medical cannabis for conditions involving the health and neurodevelopment of children is ethically problematic as it promulgates access inequities, risk-benefit inconsistencies, and inadequate consent mechanisms. In two virtual sessions using participatory action research and consensus-building methods, we obtained perspectives of stakeholders on ethics and medical cannabis for children and youth. The sessions focused on the scientific and regulatory landscape of medical cannabis, surrogate decision-making and assent, and the social and political culture of medical cannabis. We found that evidence-gathering and data dissemination, pressures on clinical relationships, and the lack of integration of culturally diverse perspectives and Indigenous knowledges were key areas of concern. Participants emphasized the importance of utilizing adaptive study designs, highlighted the importance of trust-building between clinicians, patients and caregivers, and discussed barriers including historical and ongoing stigmatization of medical cannabis. We conclude that continued public consultation and strength-based research that integrate diverse perspectives are critical steps forward.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chapman, S., et al. 2021. Medical cannabis in pediatric oncology: A survey of patients and caregivers. Support. Care Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06202-z.
Elliott, J., et al. 2020. Barriers in accessing medical cannabis for children with drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada: A qualitative study. Epilepsy Behav. 111: 107120.
Gibbard, M., D. Mount, S.R. Rassekh, and H. Siden. 2021. Family attitudes about and experiences with medical cannabis in children with cancer or epilepsy: an exploratory qualitative study. CMAJ Open 9: E563–E569.
Webster, P. 2021. Hundreds of scientists sign letter arguing that regulation is stifling cannabis research. Nat. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41591-021-00023-7.
Cox, C. 2021. Implications of the 2018 Canadian Cannabis Act: Should regulation differ for medicinal and non-medicinal cannabis use? Health Policy 125: 12–16.
Boehnke, K.F., S. Gangopadhyay, D.J. Clauw, and R.L. Haffajee. 2019. Qualifying conditions of medical cannabis license holders in the United States. Health Aff. (Millwood) 38: 295–302.
Aguilar, S., V, Gutiérrez, L, Sánchez, and M, Nougier, 2018. Medicinal cannabis policies and practices around the world. Nal Drug Policy Consort.
Lintzeris, N., et al. 2020. Medical cannabis use in the Australian community following introduction of legal access: the 2018–2019 Online Cross-Sectional Cannabis as Medicine Survey (CAMS-18). Harm. Reduct. J. 17: 37.
Nutt, D., S. Bazire, L.D. Phillips, and A.K. Schlag. 2020. So near yet so far: Why won’t the UK prescribe medical cannabis? BMJ Open 10: 9.
Schlag, A.K. 2020. An evaluation of regulatory regimes of medical cannabis: What lessons can be learned for the UK? Med. Cannabis Cannabinoids 3: 76–83.
Gunning, M., et al. 2021. Clinician views and ethics priorities for authorizing medical cannabis in the care of youth: A qualitative study. Rev. CMAJ.
Baum, F., C. MacDougall, and D. Smith. 2006. Participatory action research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60: 854–857.
Jones, J., and D. Hunter. 1995. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311: 376–380.
Byram, A.C., et al. 2016. Ethical and clinical considerations at the intersection of functional neuroimaging and disorders of consciousness: The experts weigh in. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethic 25: 613–622.
Miller, F.G., J.J. Fins, and M.D. Bacchetta. 1996. Clinical pragmatism: John Dewey and clinical ethics. J. Contemp. Health Law Policy 13: 27–51.
Pavarini, G., and I. Singh. 2018. Pragmatic neuroethics: Lived experiences as a source of moral knowledge. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 27: 578–589.
Racine, E. 2008. Interdisciplinary approaches for a pragmatic neuroethics. Am. J. Bioeth. AJOB 8: 52–53.
Vaismoradi, M., H. Turunen, and T. Bondas. 2013. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs. Health Sci. 15: 398–405.
Hsieh, H.-F., and S.E. Shannon. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15: 1277–1288.
Kaipayil, J. 2009. Relationalism: A Theory of Being. Bangalore: JIP Publ.
Ware, M.A. 2018. Medical cannabis research: Issues and priorities. Neuropsychopharmacology 43: 214–215.
Saleebey, D. 1996. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions. Soc. Work 41: 296–305.
Hyett, S.L., C, Gabel, S, Marjerrison, and L, Schwartz, 2019. Deficit-based Indigenous health research and the stereotyping of Indigenous People. Can. J. Bioeth. 2.
Rotermann, M. 2019. Analysis of trends in the prevalence of cannabis use and related metrics in Canada. Health Rep. 30: 3–13.
Elliott, J., et al. 2020. Neurologists’ perspectives on medical cannabis for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada: A qualitative interview study. Seizure 78: 118–126.
Kellmery, P., J. Chandler, L. Cabrera, A. Carter, K. Kreitmair, A. Weiss, and J. Illes. 2019. Neuroethics at 15: The Current and Future Environment for Neuroethics. AJOB Neurosci. 10: 104–110.
Adams, A., et al. 2020. International Brain Initiative: An innovative framework for coordinated global brain research efforts. Neuron 105: 212–216.
Koller, D. 2017. ‘Kids need to talk too’: Inclusive practices for children’s healthcare education and participation. J. Clin. Nurs. 26: 2657–2668.
Wylie, L., and S. McConkey. 2019. Insiders’ insight: Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples through the eyes of health care professionals. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities 6: 37–45.
Bubela, T., et al. 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nat. Biotechnol. 27: 514–518.
Buchman, D.Z., A. Ho, and D.S. Goldberg. 2017. Investigating trust, expertise, and epistemic injustice in chronic pain. J. Bioethical Inq. 14: 31–42.
Schwab, A. 2012. Epistemic humility and medical practice: Translating epistemic categories into ethical obligations. J. Med. Philos. Forum Bioeth. Philos. Med. 37: 28–48.
Day, D.C. 2008. The capable minor’s healthcare: Who decides? Can. Bar Rev. 86: 379.
Poole, N., Talbot, C. and Nathoo, T. 2017. Healing families, helping systems: A trauma-informed practice guide for working with children, youth and families. Br. Columbia Minist. Child. Fam. Dev.
Chan, A.-W. 2008. Bias, spin, and misreporting: Time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLOS Med. 5: E230.
Acknowledgements
Cannabis for Symptom Management in Children with Cancer: Canadian Childhood Cannabinoid Clinical Trials (C4T) Platform (CIHR 707031 ; L. Kelly, Principal Investigator). JI is UBC Distinguished University Scholar. We thank all participants - members of the public and experts - for their time and contributions to this work, and Tracy Brace for her special contribution to the title.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper, with the exception of MAW who is an employee of Canopy Growth, a Canadian licensed cannabis producer. All authors provided intellectual content, and reviewed and give final approval of the version to be published.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Alice Virani, Bruce Crooks, James Anderson, Lauren E Kelly, Lynda G. Balneaves, Mark A. Ware, Michael Rieder, S. Rod Rassekh, Tracy Brace, Wayne Hall and Zina Zaslawski are equally contributed to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gunning, M., Rotenberg, A., Anderson, J. et al. Neither the “Devil’s Lettuce” nor a “Miracle Cure:” The Use of Medical Cannabis in the Care of Children and Youth. Neuroethics 15, 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09478-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09478-y