Welcome to MedBoardWatch.com
Concerned Physicians working for safe and appropriate use of Medicinal Cannabis

 

Help for doctors, attorneys and patients legal documents, decisions, precedents, opinions etc.
Proposition 215
(read the text -- its short)
Also known as: California Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CCUA) Health and Safety Code 11362.5 (HSC 11362.5).
Conant v. Walters
(complete text version)
summary | .pdf (35 pages)
Bearman v. Joseph
with commentary by Dr. Bearman, Attorney Weisberg, and Dr. Lucido
Implementation of the Compassionate Use Act in a Family Medical Practice: Seven Years Clinical Experience by
Frank H. Lucido, MD

Selections from above:

Marijuana Myths,
Marijuana Facts
Cannabis resource list

Home | Links
About Frank Lucido, MD

Documentation - Pros and Cons

There is a wide range of acceptable standards in medicine. Some doctors have been criticized for not requiring documentation of diagnosis when they approve cannabis use. Others feel that the requirement creates unnecessary barriers for patients. My arguments for requiring documentation include:

  • It is common in other situations in health care.

  • It enhances patient protection, both medical, legal and financial.

  • It gives me more confidence that, if called upon to do so, I could successfully defend a patient's appropriate medical use in a court of law.

  • If law enforcement calls me to verify compliance with Prop 215, I am able to say:  "Not only did I assess the patient, but I have independent documentation of the diagnosis for which the patient uses cannabis."

  • In most cases, law enforcement officers have been polite and replied something to the effect of: "Thank you, doctor, we just wanted to make sure it was a valid recommendation."

The following arguments have been made against requiring documentation:

  • It is not necessarily consistent with the long tradition in medicine of a trusted doctor/patient relationship.

  • It may imply that it is less than acceptable for a doctor to do his or her own evaluation, and determine that cannabis will or won't benefit a particular patient.

  • Records may be unavailable or difficult to obtain. Consider the situation of a patient who suffered a traumatic injury many years ago, and doesn't have ongoing care for chronic pain. The patient has been self-treating effectively, and now wants to comply with state law. In this situation, the history and physical examination might be enough to make me feel comfortable without further documentation of the diagnosis.

Notes on Confidentiality

Many patients seek out cannabis consultants because they don't feel comfortable disclosing to their primary care providers doctors that they have been self-medicating with cannabis.

Although I do require that the patient's primary provider or other appropriate practitioner be aware of, and follow, the serious illness for which cannabis is used, I do not require that the patient disclose his or her medical cannabis use to these providers in all cases. The wording I generally use in explaining this is: "In a perfect world, you should be able to tell your physician everything. But unless, and until the federal government, employers and insurance companies no longer discriminate against medical cannabis users, there is valid reason not to have cannabis mentioned in your medical records."

I ask the patient to assess whether he or she feels safe in telling their doctor "off the record"  that they're using cannabis medicinally. If the answer is yes, I encourage them to do so. Your own doctor knows you best, and in a perfect world, one should be able to tell his or her doctor everything. 

I don't accept insurance for medical cannabis consultations, nor do I recommend that the patient bill the insurance company, unless the patient is willing to have his/her insurance company see these records.

Special circumstances

Some patient-care situations deserve special mention, as they present unusual complexities or problems.

Should a patient's medical cannabis use be questioned, some presentations or diagnoses are particularly likely to be challenged by school, probation or law enforcement authorities.

Psychiatric Patients

Psychiatric diagnoses, particularly if unstable, are likely to raise this kind of "red flag."  In such cases, it is important  to have a good history of the efficacy of cannabis for the patient. Approval of the therapist is desirable; next best is a significant other who can attest to the patient's condition being  improved by medical cannabis use.

Minors

The recommendation of medical cannabis use to minors is an area of controversy. As in all of medicine, one must make a risk/benefit assessment.

The developmental needs of adolescents and children suggest that cannabis use should be discouraged, unless, as would be true in a person of any age, the medical benefit obtained outweighs the risk.  Recommendations for medical cannabis for minors should be issued conservatively, and evidence of effectiveness should be well-documented, as should be parental consent.

Elders and/or naïve users

Many elders have never been exposed to a social environment in which cannabis is used recreationally. For these patients, as well as for any naïve or first-time user, the psychological effects may be disturbing. The extensive report on medical cannabis prepared by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine in 1999 suggests that "for some patients-particularly older patients with no previous marijuana experience-the psychological effects are disturbing (p. 4)."

In the years following the legalization of cannabis for medical use, only a small fraction of patients seeking physician approval have been cannabis-naive. At least 90 percent  of those seeking approval from CCRMG-affiliated physicians already know that, for them, the benefits outweigh any adverse effects. More naive patients can be expected to inquire about cannabis as a treatment option as favorable research results from Europe are reported in the literature.

How will the naive patient learn to use cannabis?

  • An additional question in relation to the inexperienced user is that of how the patient will learn to use cannabis.

  • Who is available to teach the patient?

  • Will an informed, experienced user be available when the patient first tries medical cannabis?

  • In what form will the patient ingest cannabis?

  • Does he or she understand the concept of titration of the dose?

  • Is there a protected environment available to the patient for his or her initial and subsequent use?

  • How should the patient be counseled about the possibility of unwanted effects?

  • What precautions or preparation should the patient be advised to use?

Conclusions

Physicians who are considering whether to approve cannabis use by their patients must first educate themselves on the subject. Cannabis has a long, impressive history as a safe and effective medicine. Although the United States has limited studies on the benefits of cannabis, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has funded significant research into its mechanism of action. Universities and major pharmaceutical companies are conducting groundbreaking studies. Much of this research is available in: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential.

My advice to colleagues, in brief:

  • Practice responsible medicine, including encouraging patients to obtain appropriate follow-up of their illnesses from their primary care practitioner.

  • Maintain good documentation, both of previous history and outside records, and of your own history, physical, assessment, and follow-up plan.

  • Be able to explain your decision-making process in a court of law should you be called upon to support a legitimate patient, or to discuss a patient's cannabis use with an employee health clinician. 

  • On occasion, a question may arise as to whether a patient can perform safety-sensitive functions in the workplace.  It may be important to document that the patient does not use cannabis in a specified time frame in relation to hours of work.

  • Do not assist anyone in breaking the law.  The vast majority of medical cannabis patients are honest and appropriate medical users under the Compassionate Use Act. (Notwithstanding the situations in which doctors have had visits from undercover agents posing as patients).

  • I find cannabis patients to be, on the whole, as honest and forthright as patients or people in general.

  • It should go without saying, but I will say it: No matter how convinced you may be of the relative benign-ness of cannabis, do not agree to do anything illegal. Undercover agents have been known say to a doctor:  "I don't have an illness, I just want to be able to smoke marijuana." It should be clear that this is not a legitimate use of the Compassionate Use Act .

  • There are millions of real patients to help.

 References

Goldberg, C. (2002a, 8/28/03). A  few  thoughts. University of California, Davis School of Medicine. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from: medicine.ucsd.edu/clinicalmed

Goldberg, C. (2002b, 8/28/03). A practical guide to clinical medicine: Outpatient clinics
University of San Diego School of Medicine.
Retrieved November 24, 2003, from: medicine.ucsd.edu/clinicalmed/clinic.htm

Grant, M. (1992). Future directions in symptom management. In P. Larson (Ed.), Symptom management proceedings. San Francisco: UCSF Nursing Press.

Grotenhermen, F. &  and E. Russo (2002) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential
Binghanton, NY Haworth Press

Institute of Medicine (1999) Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the science base. Washington D. C., National Academy  Press Larson, P. (1992). Symptom management procedings. Paper presented at the Symptom management: Research trajectories and practice implications, San Francisco.

Rhodes, V., & Watson, P. (1987). Symptom distress - the concept, past and current. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 3(4), 242-247.

PRIOR ARTICLE: Limitations   CONTINUE: Issues of Confidentiality

Go ahead and search us:

Input to the Medical Board of California by year:
2004
November 5, 2004 -- Statement
  Reiterating the need for monitoring
 
July 30, 2004 -- Reply
  Regarding the MBC statement of 7/03
May 7, 2004 -- Transcript
  Various question raised to the MBC. Comments on MBC positions.
January 30, 2004
  Packet contents summary and statement calling to cease targeting doctors.
  Dr. Lucido reports on 1/30/04 MBC meeting
  Transcripts: 1/30/04 meeting
2003
November 7, 2003
  Will medical practice be determined by doctors or police?
August 1, 2003
  A cannabis resource list
  Associated risks
  Review of therapeutic effects
May 8, 2003
  Defining standards of care, complaint initiation and responsibility

 


Copyright pending. All rights reserved medboardwatch.com.

Hit Counter