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

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Margot Gunning, Ari Rotenberg, James Anderson, Lynda G. Balneaves, Tracy Brace, Bruce Crooks, Wayne Hall, Lauren E. Kelly, S. Rod Rassekh, Michael Rieder, Alice Virani, Mark A Ware, Zina Zaslawski, Harold Siden, Judy Illes
{"title":"Neither the “Devil’s Lettuce” nor a “Miracle Cure:” The Use of Medical Cannabis in the Care of Children and Youth","authors":"Margot Gunning, Ari Rotenberg, James Anderson, Lynda G. Balneaves, Tracy Brace, Bruce Crooks, Wayne Hall, Lauren E. Kelly, S. Rod Rassekh, Michael Rieder, Alice Virani, Mark A Ware, Zina Zaslawski, Harold Siden, Judy Illes","doi":"10.1007/s12152-022-09478-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":"288 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09478-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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.

既不是“魔鬼的生菜”,也不是“奇迹治疗”:在儿童和青少年护理中使用医用大麻
在为涉及儿童健康和神经发育的情况批准医用大麻方面缺乏指导和监管,这在伦理上是有问题的,因为它造成了获取不公平、风险-效益不一致和同意机制不充分。在使用参与性行动研究和建立共识方法的两次虚拟会议中,我们获得了利益攸关方对道德和儿童和青年医用大麻的看法。这些会议的重点是医用大麻的科学和监管情况、替代决策和同意以及医用大麻的社会和政治文化。我们发现,证据收集和数据传播、临床关系的压力以及缺乏文化多样性观点和土著知识的整合是关注的关键领域。与会者强调了利用适应性研究设计的重要性,强调了在临床医生、患者和护理人员之间建立信任的重要性,并讨论了各种障碍,包括过去和现在对医用大麻的污名化。我们的结论是,持续的公众咨询和整合不同观点的基于实力的研究是向前迈出的关键步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信