Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Neither the “Devil’s Lettuce” nor a “Miracle Cure:” The Use of Medical Cannabis in the Care of Children and Youth

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aguilar, S., V, Gutiérrez, L, Sánchez, and M, Nougier, 2018. Medicinal cannabis policies and practices around the world. Nal Drug Policy Consort.

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gunning, M., et al. 2021. Clinician views and ethics priorities for authorizing medical cannabis in the care of youth: A qualitative study. Rev. CMAJ.

  12. Baum, F., C. MacDougall, and D. Smith. 2006. Participatory action research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60: 854–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jones, J., and D. Hunter. 1995. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311: 376–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pavarini, G., and I. Singh. 2018. Pragmatic neuroethics: Lived experiences as a source of moral knowledge. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 27: 578–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Racine, E. 2008. Interdisciplinary approaches for a pragmatic neuroethics. Am. J. Bioeth. AJOB 8: 52–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hsieh, H.-F., and S.E. Shannon. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15: 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaipayil, J. 2009. Relationalism: A Theory of Being. Bangalore: JIP Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ware, M.A. 2018. Medical cannabis research: Issues and priorities. Neuropsychopharmacology 43: 214–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saleebey, D. 1996. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions. Soc. Work 41: 296–305.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

  24. Rotermann, M. 2019. Analysis of trends in the prevalence of cannabis use and related metrics in Canada. Health Rep. 30: 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Adams, A., et al. 2020. International Brain Initiative: An innovative framework for coordinated global brain research efforts. Neuron 105: 212–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Koller, D. 2017. ‘Kids need to talk too’: Inclusive practices for children’s healthcare education and participation. J. Clin. Nurs. 26: 2657–2668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bubela, T., et al. 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nat. Biotechnol. 27: 514–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwab, A. 2012. Epistemic humility and medical practice: Translating epistemic categories into ethical obligations. J. Med. Philos. Forum Bioeth. Philos. Med. 37: 28–48.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Day, D.C. 2008. The capable minor’s healthcare: Who decides? Can. Bar Rev. 86: 379.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

  35. Chan, A.-W. 2008. Bias, spin, and misreporting: Time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLOS Med. 5: E230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy Illes.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09478-y

Keywords

Navigation