I have begun to believe my mind is full of tiny little topics that act like pimples.

No one can predict the order they start to fester in, or when they’ll get ripe and burst.

Showing posts with label CMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CMA. Show all posts

Monday, 9 February 2015

Liars, Liars, Pants on Fire

I HAVE A COMPLAINT!
You are Violating Your Oath!
Stop Lying to Your Patients.
Regain Your Integrity!


Attn; Dr. Simpson and all College Registrars

Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities
Fleur-Ange Lefebvre, Executive Director and CEO
College of Physicians and Surgeons
Registrar
Alberta
Dr. Trevor Theman
Saskatchewan
Dr. Karen Shaw
Manitoba
Dr. William Pope
Quebec
Dr. Yves Robert
New Brunswick
Dr. Ed Schollenberg
Nova Scotia
Dr. Douglas A. (Gus) Grant
Prince Edward Island
Dr. Cyril Moyse
Newfoundland and Labrador
Dr. Robert Young
Yukon
Ms. Fiona Charbonneau
Nunavut
Ms. Barbara Harvey
Ontario
Mr. Dan Faulkner


Ladies and Gentlemen: I have a Complaint:

The Medical Marijuana Policy of the CMA
 Violates its own Code of Ethics


After reviewing the history of the Medical Marijuana Program I have come to the conclusion that the Medical Profession in Canada, by their avoidance of the truth has, possibly unknowingly, committed an act of professional misconduct, in that they have engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

My name is Blaine Barrett and I am a Medical Marijuana Advocate and Ethical Critic residing in Surrey BC. I am 72, a concerned Senior Citizen and one of 40000 patients who were previously legally licensed to use and purchase Medical Marijuana. Since September of this year all 40,000 of us are now compelled by law to obtain a signature but cannot get a physician to sign applications for a “renewal”! I suffer from Double Depression and Neurological Pain in my back and legs. I have used Marijuana since 1999 for mental control and pain management. I only require 1-2 gr./day but when I need it I NEED it!

I obtained my first Application Form B2 signature in 2007 and since my first purchase from them I have been witness to the Harper Government’s Health Canada calculated destruction of the Medical Marijuana Access Program. The implementation of the Marihuana for Medical for Research Purposes Regulations has destroyed all patients’ ability to obtain their medication from any legal source except of the new crop of extremely expensive Licensed Producer (LP). In order for a patient to become a customer he must provide a document signed by a doctor, and that at this moment has created an insurmountable blockade for access to a legal supply of Marijuana.
We need help. There are 40,000 qualifed applicants who need a renewal.

What is most disappointing is the Canadian Medical Association’s participation in the destruction of the MMAR. They adopted a hostile Medical Marijuana Policy to act as a deterrent to their members. Ever since 2003 the CMA has stubbornly refused to comply with the MMAR policies that it finds objectionable; and has advised its members not to participate in the program by refusing to sign applications. This was an obstacle to patients that has continually increased in severity for the past 11 years and it’s all based on lies.

With the creation of the MMRP program in Sept. 2013 Health Canada changed the source of our legal supply to an LP but there still was a way to access with a doctor’s signature. That access has now been eliminated as of May 13, 2014.



May 13, 2014, six months ago, Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti, the last president of the Canadian Medical Association made a declaration and as the head of the advocacy organization had one message for all Canadian doctors when it comes to prescribing marijuana:

“Don’t do it!”


The Deterioration of Medical Ethics
Related to Medical Marijuana

In the course of our national history, there has never been another profession more respected, admired, and trusted than the Canadian Medical Profession was in 1867. Three months after the founding of Canada, 164 Canadian Medical Professionals coalesced to form the Canadian Medical Association to serve our national health needs.

One of their first concerns was with the moral and ethical character of Physicians to ensure a continuation of the respect they held in Society. To ensure the expectations were met, they devised and adopted a Code of Ethics to cover the practice of Medicine in Canada and expand the scope of the Hippocratic Oath they all swore to honour. This was last revised in 2004 and last reviewed in Mar, 2012. It is based on the fundamental principles and values of medical ethics, especially compassion, beneficence, non-malfeasance, respect for persons, justice and accountability.

It is worthy to note that at that time physicians relied on testimonial evidence alone. With reference to Cannabis the evidence is still on hand: 5000 years of medical use with not one death or any other established harmful consequence of its use; but the CMA now opposes its use in any form. What happened to detour the CMA into a complete reversal regarding Cannabis?

There effectively was no CMA policy regarding marijuana for 100 years until the Hippy Revolution of the 1960’s raised its profile and the War on Drugs commenced. The CMA was not overly concerned about pot and prior to 2000 they were in favour of decriminalization. Then the Canadian Government passed the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations and the CMA got its nose out of joint because the Government took the position of telling them what to do and not asking for their help. Over the course of the last 11 years and 11 presidents the CMA has rigidly opposed Medical Marijuana citing three primary objections and Physicians are now obstructing the application process.

They now condemn all testimonial evidence as a pack of lies and cannabis has no medical benefit worthy of consideration? Despite 5000 years of no harm this opposition is based on three complete lies that have intentionally distorted the publics understanding of cannabis’ medical benefit.

THE TRIO OF LIES!
Violations of Ethics rule 4, 9, and 14

1.    Prescribing marijuana to a patient is a risk that exposes him to too many unknown possible detrimental effects and could harm the patient.

Over 5000 years of Testimonial evidence laud its wide range of medical benefits and supports the lack of any possible harm: not one death or consequential health problem from its use in any fashion. The CMA asserts there is no scientific basis for that conclusion and any doctor prescribing it could be legally liable for causing harm to a patient. Pure fiction! Every recipient of this complaint is fully aware that there is no legal liability related to signing an application and if there were, it is a simple matter to get a Waiver of Responsibility form for the patient to sign from your College. It’s an intentional denial and proven Cover Your Ass technique that every doctor is well aware of.

<><><><><><><><><><>

2.    There is inadequate research of any benefits from its use that are up to the acceptable standards of the CMA.

At this point these standards exclude almost all of the Global research done by the international Medical community. Any research done by any other specialty or field of practice will not be considered. Even the studies by foreign scientists of the Nobel Laureate level are intentionally ignored. At this point over 100 cannabinoids have been identified and each, or a combination result in beneficial results, but the CMA demands that each of these need to be verified as acceptable to Pharmaceutical level testing. There is more than adequate research that has been conducted in the past ten years being ignored by the CMA that proves them to be intentional liars in denial of reality.

I suggest you all bring yourselves up to date on current research and watch this documentary:

4/20 Marijuana Documentary - Cannabis Research Studies - 2014


The CMA and Health Canada are equally distortionary when it comes to the hazards of Marijuana use. Despite all the claimed hazards they have no Research Studies that meet their own CMA standards so its all Lies again.

<><><><><><><><><><>

3.    The CMA holds that Physicians who approve an application for Medical Marijuana are acting as a Gateway to more serious drug addiction and criminal behaviour.

A physician’s signature on an Application for Marijuana is deemed a Prescription by the CMA: What a line of crap. Read both the MMAR and the MMPR and neither requires a “Prescription”.

The MMAR requires a signature on a Form B1 or B2. That signature is a declaration that the symptoms displayed by an applicant are enough to warrant inclusion as a Licensee under the MMAR. The License permits the patient to purchase and possess dried marijuana from Health Canada and no place else.

The MMRP is similar in that all the doctor is doing is simply certifying that the applicant once again meets the symptom criteria for medical marijuana and the signed application serves only as authority to purchase dried marijuana from one of the new expensive Licensed Producers. It has no other power!

<><><><><><><><><><>

The three foregoing statements, as justification for the CMA’s blockade of signatures, are in direct conflict with the CMA Code of Ethics to which all physicians are required to conform. There are 53 rules and I have only cited the three most egregious violations by the Association before I deal with those of the Colleges.

As Class examples:

4. Practise the art and science of medicine competently, with     Integrity

Integrity= the most important requirement in a man of Character! Its primary and first component is Honesty!
“Risk”, “No benefit” and “Addictive”
 = Intentional, Calculated LIES!

You may not agree with that conclusion but there are 40,000 of us who believe it. They know better!

9. Refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.

We have a Charter Right to Access our Medication.
Why are our physicians blocking the way?

The CMA opposes Parental Control of Treatment

Compare these two conflicts:

Ref: Leukemia treatment disputes reopen debate whether parents should have final say over children’s welfare


Cannabis Extract Treatment for Terminal Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia with a Philadelphia Chromosome Mutation



Why is the Medical Profession exercising its power to deny Parental Rights and forcing children into chemotherapy with all its known hazardous effects? In this instance they refuse treatment with a medication with no known serious side effects in favour of chemotherapy with a high probability of Chemo side effects:
Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting, Mouth Sores, (Mucositis), Neuropathy, Neutropenia and Infections, Diarrhea, Constipation, and Hair loss.


14. Take all reasonable steps to prevent harm to patients;

Intentional denial of access to a medication being used for symptom relief, knowing full well that this act could result in serious recurrence of symptoms, is not a reasonable step to avoid harm. Neither are Prescribing Fentanyl and Opioids with devastating known side effects and an elevated risk of death.

<><><><><><><><><><>

These three statements effectively establish that the CMA based their Marijuana Policy, on lies that are obvious to any person who values integrity and has even a minimal knowledge of Medical Marijuana use.


The Role of the Colleges

I feel betrayed by the opposition to Cannabis use as declared in CMA Official Policy. I feel further dismayed by every Canadian College of Physicians and Surgeons copying, adopting and following the CMA’s lead blindly and proliferating the three lies. All Colleges recently revised their Official Policies to add additional restrictive procedures and practices that are totally ridiculous and completely impractical. You have no idea of the complexity of the medication you are trying to regulate: these additions to policy are based on ignorance with no basis in fact.

It seems the Doctors have now taken the initiative and in return for their signature want total control of the Doctor/ Patient relationship. We have a profession that, after admitting that they have very little knowledge about any of the aspects of Medicinal Cannabis use or treatment: are demanding complete control of a patient’s treatment under threat of terminating their prescription for disobedience. That is not going to fly. You are acting prematurely and without consideration of the fact that at the current time you are only dealing with the smallest component of the patient pool by blindly following the Harper restriction of medical use to smoking dried marijuana.

For the past eleven years the medical profession has effectively watched the use of marijuana as a medication grow and made no attempt to learn anything about marijuana therapy and treatment modes. You are dealing with a patient population that for all that time was improvising and developing different methods of treatment for a large number of medical problems and 90% have abandoned smoking and developed a whole range of treatment options that you are ignoring. Depending on the problem there are oils like Phoenix Tears, Extracts, tinctures, edibles, ointments, suppositories, etc. and the majority of physicians are ignorant of any of it. 

At this point the Doctor/Patient relationship between the 40000 Medical Marijuana Qualified Patients and almost all 60000 of your CMA members is one of mistrust. Doctors view patients as potential drug addicts and liability risk and Patients view Doctors as a contemptible bunch of liars in denial of reality. We feel betrayed because we trusted you as Good Samaritans and you have just ignored our need for help for years and you are still stuck telling the same three lame lies as justification for closing your eyes to the consequences of your indifference.

Stop and Reconsider

At this point, as a profession, you are backed into a corner with no place to go. Salvage your integrity and tell the truth. Simply admit you have reassessed your position and you were wrong. Not publicly but privately to yourself and consider what I am proposing as a change in tactics that can go a long way to restoring the Doctor/Patient relationship to one of mutual trust.

At this time the profession is fixated on only Dried Marijuana as the whole problem. I doubt even 10% of the patients using Medical Marijuana do so by smoking. The majority require raw plant product as a source material for whatever personal formula they are making to treat themselves. They make oils, extracts, medibles, and salves in 1000+ differing ways and schedules of use. A lousy prescription, as you call it, for the maximum 5 grams recommended by Ottawa does absolutely nothing if the patient needs 50 pounds of raw herbal product per month for his treatment. You all know nothing about the manufacture or use of any of these products in depth and in about two years with legalization a physician’s permission will be null and void and the distrust of the 90% of users will never be destroyed.

You all need to eat some crow and show some moral fortitude and join with your patients to demand money from the liars in the Harper Government to correct your lack of knowledge. Research is necessary and attached to this Complaint you will find one possible way to deal with the problem. My proposal is called the Risk Research Assessment Project and it is attached for your consideration. I previously made this in the form of a proposal for a joint research project to Dr. Louis Francescutti after his appointment to the CMA Presidency. I was ignored as is standard practice for the CMA.
Since then I have watched the profession fester with resentment and they are now in an impossible situation making unreasonable demands that cannot be met because they have destroyed all confidence in their role as a trustworthy source of help.

I may be a fool or simply overly optimistic but I believe that there is a way to break the current impasse if only the profession will listen and understand that they need to show some humanity and understanding and above all negotiate a middle ground to establish a workable Doctor/Patient relationship in Cannabis Treatment and establish its benefit on a factual basis.

So where does that leave us now?
In a position where we can ignore Government influence and resolve the differences in goals of Doctors and Patients by partnering to a new instructional model and eliminating the shortage of information that so plagues Doctors in the assumption of the risk of treatment. To this end I now repeat the proposal I made the CMA to establish a joint Program to collect the missing information. It is far from perfect but consideration of its development into a data base of great utility in a very short time.

I would very much appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this Complaint and thank you in advance for any consideration you may give my proposal.

I would very much like to know your reaction and would welcome any criticism or comment you may feel free to provide as to how you collectively will proceed to correct these ethical shortcomings.
Best regards


____________
Blaine Barrett
#255, 10202-149st
Surrey BC V3R 3Z8

Monday, 28 July 2014

The CMA Response to My Criticism


I Offended The CMA
They Requested I Shut Up!


Bonus: Today I got a letter in response to my recent critcism of Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti. He’s too damned uppity to respond himself so he had his hired help write me. LOL

Dear Mr. Barrett

I am writing to you in my capacity as CMA’s Senior Legal Counsel in regards to your most recent correspondence to the CMA President, Dr. L.H. Francescutti on the subject of medical marijuana.

While individuals are certainly entitled to differences on opinion on such subject matters, we wish to underline that some of your statements are not appropriate nor professional. Do not direct future statements of this nature to the CMA and its elected representatives. Please govern yourself accordingly.

Yours
Jean Nelson
                           <><><><><><><><><><>                                 My Reply

Dear Ms. Nelson:

Thank you for your contact if for no other reason than it’s an acknowledgement that Dr. Lou is finally reading my submissions. You might ask him to see my previous ones which were, at the start, very appropriate and professional- No response. The fact that the fool decided to out me on his ignore list prompted this one you object to. My comments are all appropriate when directed at and about Dr. Lou. They are presented in a professional manner that matches that of your lord and master and I actually resent having to lower my standards to match his in order to establish a contact.

You are CMA’s Senior Legal Counsel and obviously have to be familiar with the provisions both the MMAR and the MMRP. Why are you letting Dr. Lou get away with his continual repetition of his lie that the document doctor’s have to sign is a “prescription”? That is an outright lie and you know it.

The Letter now required by the MMRP effectively is the same MMAR Declaration confirming the symptoms qualifying an individual for a legal right to buy pot. The only change with the MMRP is the restriction of that right to purchase from only one vendor from their approved list. What Doctors sign is not a prescription but a permit to buy and the Gateway function signing will create is just Bull!

You are allowing the fool to present the CMA as a collection of cowards in denial of the benefits of Marijuana because they all fear loss of income and will lose big kickbacks and fringe benefits that Big Pharma has used to buy their loyalty and “Prescribing” drugs one hell of a lot more dangerous than pot. For heavens sake, Dr. Francescutti should be far more concerned with his followers actually killing patients with their over-prescribing of Big Pharma opiates and other drugs with fatal consequences.

I should point out that I have no need to slice up Dr. Lou’s most recent outpouring of anguish over the harassment and approach of the sales professionals for marijuana who copy the tactics of Big Pharma sales professionals promoting their poisons.

I have no need to blow his presentation all to hell because that has already effectively been done by a Teenager who before he even enters university has the ability to recognize bullshit for what it is. You might want to send him a “Shut Your Mouth” letter like you did me. Check it out, you can read it in the True North Times at http://www.truenorthtimes.ca/2014/07/26/canadian-doctors-considering-medical-marijuana/#.U9WOtm2RaK0.facebook

I have no intention of curbing my criticism of Dr. Lou when he advocates that his Physicians violate their Oath “Do no harm” and refuse to sign for a patient in pain and are content to sit back and wait for their victim to die. This asshole has caused more harm to the Medical Marijuana patient pool than any of his predecessors. There are 40,000 of them declaring they benefit from using cannabis for manifold diseases and conditions and Dr. Lou stands on his podium declaring it has “No Medical Benefit”, that there has been no valid research despite thousands of published technically valid studies, that there is great risk in its use despite 5000 years of medical and recreational use. He closes his eyes and refuses to see the benefits that changed Dr. Sanjay Gupta from an opponent into an advocate for its use. I don’t understand how he could have missed the “Weed” documentary with its national exposure a half dozen times on various networks. I believe he is fully aware of his intentional denial of benefit but he has painted himself into a corner where he simply cannot declare himself a liar.

As far as your order “Do not direct future statements of this nature to the CMA and its elected representatives.” You can shove it where the sun don’t shine! 
I intent to continue to challenge the stupidity and dishonorable conduct of both Dr. Lou and his followers in the CMA, with regard to Medical Marijuana. As long as they persist with their denial of help to me and my 40,000 fellow companions now being persecuted, I will do so using any language appropriate to the situation, witha level of professionalism suitable to that of my target.

I do not know if you believe you have any legal recourse to make me hold my tongue and I don’t really give a damn if you do. Go ahead and sue me. I can’t even afford my own medication because of CMA’s opposition. Go ahead and get me arrested and thrown in the clink. I don’t give a shit if you do. That would be an increase in my standard of living: free rent, free meals, a new circle of friends for me, and a welcome holiday for my wife.

Feel free to do anything you want. I’m not afraid of Harper, the Cops and not you. Anything you do to silence me will simply elevate my podium and public visibility to a higher level. I need all the publicity I can get

At one point in my life long past I actually believed that a Doctor was a man of Character and held the profession in high regard. Unfortunately Dr. Lou and the profession have demonstrated a complete lack of ”The Six Pillars of Character” the ethical qualities that earned my regard: .
 
Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring, Citizenship.


Among these Pillars, “Honesty” is the most important component of each. The battery of lies regarding Cannabis that the CMA is spouting under D. Lou’s leadership, have destroyed all Six Pillars and the image the public is getting from their attitude is that of a bunch of moral derelicts.

 I have already published this reply completely on my blog at:


Chew on that. I look forward to your response

Blaine Barrett

Friday, 28 March 2014

Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's Medical Cannabis Policy and Program





This is not my writing

I wish it was

It is a reprint

of

A Jan 2012 PubMed Commons Article

 

I am reprinting it here because I want all of my friends and followers to find out just who we are as Customers relating to Health Canada and how as a group in 2007-8 we were utilizing and obtaining our cannabis supply.

It’s just a snapshot in time but it’s sad to see things are even more complicated after 7 more years of Government interference and Physician obstruction but remarkably SameOh! SameOh!

I should warn all you potential readers that it is a long read of many pages but reading it is well worth the effort. Fortunately it is broken into shorter segments that stand individually and I learned a lot I was ignorant of in the utilization of the HERB.

Abstract

The Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's

Medical Cannabis Policy and Program

BACKGROUND:

In 2001 Health Canada responded to a series of Ontario court decisions by creating the Marihuana Medical Access Division (MMAD) and the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). Although Health Canada has conducted a small number of stakeholder consultations, the federal government has never polled federally authorized cannabis patients. This study is an attempt to learn more about patient needs, challenges and experiences with the MMAD.

Methods

Launched in the spring of 2007, Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's Medical Cannabis Policy and Program pairs a 50 question online survey addressing the personal experiences of patients in the federal cannabis program with 25 semi-guided interviews. Data gathering for this study took place from April 2007 to Jan. 2008, eventually garnering survey responses from 100 federally-authorized users, which at the time represented about 5% of the patients enrolled in Health Canada's program. This paper presents the results of the survey portion of the study.

Results

8% of respondents report getting their cannabis from Health Canada, while 66% grow it for themselves. >50% report that they frequent compassion clubs or dispensaries, which remain illegal and unregulated in Canada. 81% of patients would chose certified organic methods of cultivation; >90% state that not all strains are equally effective at relieving symptoms, and 97% would prefer to obtain cannabis from a source where multiple strains are available.
Of the 48 patients polled that had tried the Health Canada cannabis supply, >75% rank it as either "1" or "2" on a scale of 1-10 (with "1" being "very poor", and 10 being "excellent").

Discussion

72% of respondents report they are either "somewhat" or "totally unsatisfied" with Canada's medical cannabis program. These survey results and relevant court decisions suggest that the MMAR are not meeting the needs of most of the nation's medical cannabis patient community. It is hoped this research will help inform policy changes that will better address the needs of Canada's critically and chronically ill medical cannabis patient population, including the integration of community-based dispensaries into this novel healthcare delivery model.

Background

According to the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (2001) cannabis is the most popular illicit substance in the world. Despite the high rate of recreational use and over 5000 years of medical use, there has never been a substantiated case of death resulting from cannabis overdose. However, the therapeutic use of cannabis remains highly controversial, and only a few Western nations have introduced policies or programs to allow legal access to medical cannabis.

The Canadian government currently allows for limited access to medical cannabis through the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR), which are administered by Health Canada's Marihuana Medical Access Division (MMAD). These court-ordered regulations are the source of much criticism by end-users and advocates, and have been found by courts to be unconstitutional in a number of decisions for unnecessarily limiting access to legal protection and a safe supply of cannabis 

Initially established in response to patient needs and ineffective or non-existent federal medical cannabis policies, community-based medical cannabis dispensaries have become the main suppliers of medical cannabis in both Canada and in many of the 14 U.S. states that have legalized the medical use of cannabis. In Canada, community-based dispensaries, otherwise known as "compassion clubs" currently supply over 30,000 critically or chronically ill Canadians with medical cannabis.

Although Canadian dispensaries continue to operate without legal sanction or protection, recent research suggests that this patient-centered healthcare delivery model builds social capital and provide patients with a safe supply of cannabis within a supportive environment that's conducive to healing.

A Brief History of Cannabis as a Medicine

The medical use of cannabis can be traced back at least 5000 years. The oldest reports originate in China and Egypt. It appears in a medical context in the Vedas, India's oldest religious text, and there are reports of its use as a medicine from fragments of Assyrian texts dating back to 700 B.C. The famous Chinese doctor Hua T'uo (approx. 100 A.D.) reportedly made use of a wine and cannabis mixture as an anaesthetic for surgical operations.

There are numerous reports of the medicinal properties of cannabis from early in the nineteenth century, the most famous of which is an 1839 report titled "on the Preparations of the Indian Hemp, or Gunjah" by the Irish doctor William B. O'Shaughnessy in which he describes diverse applications for cannabis, including rheumatism, rabies, cholera, tetanus, cramps and delirium tremens.A few years later Ernst Freiherr von Bibra published the renown "Narcotics and the Human Being", devoting thirty pages to the therapeutic use of cannabis preparations and hashish.

By the late 19th Century, cannabis-based preparations were manufactured and marketed by Burroughs-Wellcome & Co. In England; and Bristol-Meyers Squib, Parke-Davis, and Eli Lilly in North America. The development of vaccines to prevent the spread of common infectious diseases, the increased use of opiates (with the introduction of the hypodermic syringe), and the discovery of aspirin at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century resulted in cannabis-based medicines losing their prevalence in the market place and Western pharmacopoeia.

In Canada, the non-medical use of cannabis was outlawed as part of the Opium and Narcotics Drugs Act of 1923, largely based on a series of misleading articles written by Emily Murphy for MacLean's Magazine in the early 1920's which claimed cannabis turned people into raving, blood-thirsty lunatics. The US Pharmacopoeia listed Cannabis until 1941 and stated that cannabis can be used for treating fatigue, coughing, rheumatism, asthma, delirium tremens, migraine headaches, and the cramps and depressions associated with menstruation.

Although modern research into therapeutic applications for cannabis has been seriously stymied by its prohibition in most of the Western world, extensive anecdotal reports and a growing body of laboratory and clinical research suggest that it may have many medicinal uses, including hunger stimulation for wasting syndrome; anti-emetic and anti-nausea properties in AIDS or cancer chemotherapy; anti-spasmodic properties for MS, epilepsy and other neurological dysfunctions; reducing intra-ocular eye pressure in glaucoma; and analgesic properties in a large number of chronic pain conditions. Recent research has found that cannabis can reduce the use of pharmaceutical drugs and even be an effective treatment for addiction.

Medical Cannabis Access in Canada

Although the Canadian Addiction Survey suggests that about 1 million Canadians use cannabis for medical purposes, as of January 2010 the MMAD had only authorized 4884 people in Canada to use cannabis legally. Additionally, the federal supply of cannabis produced by a company called Prairie Plant Systems since 2000 remains highly problematic due to a lack of strain selection, controversial production methods, and patient concerns over the quality and safety.

Problems of safe access were noted by the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs in their final report on cannabis from 2002, stating that: while a process that authorizes the possession and production of marijuana has been established in Canada, this has not ensured that cannabis is suitably available to those in need... we have come to the conclusion that the MMAR have become a barrier to access. Rather than providing a compassionate framework, the regulations unduly restrict the availability of cannabis to those who may receive health benefits from its use.

According to this report, one of the main reasons for the small number of applicants to the program is reluctance by physicians to act as gatekeepers to medicinal cannabis. Citing a perceived lack of information on dosage, side effects, and alternate routes of administration to smoking, both the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Protection Agency (which insures nearly 95% of Canada's physicians) have warned against the therapeutic use of cannabis, and have recommended that doctors not participate in the federal program. 
For example, a CMA press release dated July 9th, 2003, declares:
The CMA has consistently raised concerns about the lack of evidence-based decisions to support the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations," said Dr. Dana Hanson, President of the CMA. "Our unease over use of medical marijuana has been ignored in this new policy. Physicians should not be the gatekeeper for a substance for which we do not have adequate scientific proof of safety or efficacy.

Such warnings have been a particular deterrent for medical specialists, whose support was initially necessary for all applicants to the program that were neither terminally ill nor likely to die in the next 12 months, such as those suffering from MS, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C (terminal patients only required the support of a single physician). In addition, specialists were simply not available in many smaller rural communities. When compounded by the bureaucratic hurdle of filling out a 29-page application that sometimes took in excess of 12 months for Health Canada to process, the challenges to participation in this program ranged from onerous to impossible for many potential applicants.

Health Canada officially amended the MMAD application process in 2005 to remove the requirement of a supportive specialist under most circumstances. However, the new "simplified" application form was now 33 pages long, and potential applicants continue to face resistance from the medical community. The burden of this difficult application process is apparent in comparing the MMAD with the state-run Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP), one of twelve state-administered medical cannabis programs in the U.S. Although both programs originated in 1999 and have similar medical requirements for registration, Oregon's simple two page application process has led to the registration of 23,873 participants as of October 2009 (as compared to just over 4000 in Canada during the same period) - despite having a population one-tenth that of Canada.

Community-Based Dispensaries

Community-based medical cannabis dispensaries, also called "compassion clubs", supply cannabis for therapeutic use upon a valid recommendation or confirmation of diagnosis from a licensed healthcare practitioner, and reflect a patient-centered response to the suffering of critically and chronically ill Canadians who might benefit from the medical use of cannabis.

During the late 1980's, as rates of HIV and AIDS began to rise in San Francisco, a few underground dispensaries began offering a safe source of cannabis to those needing it for medical purposes were established by compassionate people living with HIV/AIDS and drug policy reform activists. With the successful passage in 1996 of a state ballot initiative called "Proposition 215", California became the first U.S. state to allow for the legal medical use and distribution of cannabis. Within a few weeks dozens of these "compassion clubs" opened, and although they often had varied policies and practices, their common goal was facilitating access to a safe supply of cannabis for medical users.Since then, over 1000 community-based medical cannabis dispensaries have opened up in California and it is estimated that they currently supply over 250,000 state authorized patients. Similar organizations have emerged all over the world, and in Canada and the U.S. these dispensaries remain the main source of cannabis-based medicines for therapeutic use.

In Canada, a loose network of community-based dispensaries provide over 30,000 critically and chronically ill Canadians access to a safe supply of cannabis within an environment conducive to healing. Although Canadian dispensaries continue to operate without legal sanction or protection, communities, law enforcement, and criminal courts across Canada have shown support and tolerance for compassion clubs that self-regulate to ensure their services are strictly for medical purposes

Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's Medical Cannabis Policy and Program

Although Health Canada hosted a stakeholder consultation in 2003 to address some of the early constitutional and bureaucratic deficiencies of the MMAR, the opinion of patients registered with the MMAD has never been officially polled by the federal government in any systematic manner. This survey is an attempt to address the dearth of information about actual patient experiences with medical cannabis and Health Canada's program.

The study was funded by the McMaster Arts Research Council, and ethics approval was granted by the McMaster Research Ethics Board. Data gathering took place from April 2007 to Jan. 2008, eventually garnering survey responses from 100 federally-authorized users, which at the time represented about 5% of the patients enrolled in Health Canada's program. 

The 50 item self-administered survey combines multiple choice and open-ended questions, and includes items informed by validated questionnaires like the Short-Form Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18) and a 2005 questionnaire designed by Belle-Isle and the Canadian AIDS Society to identify barriers to medical cannabis experienced by Canadians affected by HIV/AIDS. In addition to basic socio-demographic data, survey questions generated by the researcher to address the history of involvement and experiences with the federal program, cannabis use patterns, and specific symptoms and conditions that cannabis has relieved.

For privacy reasons Health Canada does not make a list of federally authorized medical cannabis patients available to the public, so recruiting for this study was conducted through online and hard mail outreach to medical cannabis patient internet discussion groups and community-based dispensaries. In order to ensure that survey participants were federally authorized patients, respondents were asked to type in a specific word only found on the authorized user ID card supplied by Health Canada as a password to access the online questionnaire. Although the identity of survey respondents will be kept completely anonymous, participants were also asked to supply the registration number from their Health Canada medical cannabis ID card to allow for future verification/authentication if necessary.

Demographic Data

Study participants were > 78% male and 20.4% female, and > 87% were 35 or older. Over 93% report that they are Caucasian, with 3 participants identifying as First Nations, 2 as Metis, and 1 as "black" (n = 97). In terms of income 36.8% make less than $20,000, and > 61% make less than $30,000, so this is a group that is well below the medium income in Canada, which may be the result of physical disabilities stemming from serious and/or chronic medical conditions.
 Although a medical expanse income tax claim can be filed for the cost of cannabis purchased from the government, or produced by individuals or their designated grower, there is currently no reimbursement of the actual costs of medical cannabis. In light of these findings, it is unsurprising that 46.3% of respondents state that they can "never" afford enough cannabis to relieve their symptoms. Despite the low-income levels, 77.8 had graduated from high school, and 22.3% had a university degree. According to Statistics Canada, this is slightly higher than the Canadian average; the 2006 Census found that just over 76% of Canadians had graduated from high school, and that 18% had a university degree equivalent to a Bachelor's or higher.
Demographics of Federally Authorized, Medical Cannabis Patients
Although there is no way to verify that this limited sample is representative of participants in the MMAD, a recent study by Reinarman et al assessing population characteristics of 1746 California-based medical cannabis patients offers some useful comparisons. Reinarman et al found that 72.9% of their sample was male, with the researchers theorizing that the under representation of women may be related to the gender-distribution of certain kinds of sports or workplace injuries, as well as the "...double stigma women face in seeking MM (medical marijuana) - for using an illicit drug and for violating gender-specific norms against illegal behavior in general".
Additionally, Reinarman et al found this population to be of slightly higher education levels than the general population, with 93.1% reporting at least high school graduation, and 23.8% having a post-secondary degree, which is also similar to this Canadian survey.

Patient Use Patterns and Preferences

While the overwhelming majority of participants reported using cannabis recreationally prior to their medical use, > 20% were cannabis-naïve prior to using it medically (n = 89). The average years of medical use is just over 10 years, which may be reflective of the older patient profile and additionally suggests that many patients have been using cannabis for far longer than Health Canada's federal program has been in existence. 

When asked to check off all the major symptoms for which they used medical cannabis, most cited multiple symptoms: 84.1% cited pain relief, 78.4% cited relaxation, 61.4% cited appetite stimulation, 60.2% cited anxiety reduction, 58% cited depression, 56.8% cited nausea reduction/vomiting, 55.7% cited mood improvement, 43.2% cited desire to manage/gain weight, 42% cited reduction in 
spasticity/tremors, and 23.9% cited side-effects of other medications. Of interest is the high number of individuals using cannabis for relaxation, anxiety reduction, depression and mood improvement, suggesting that patients with physical health conditions may also be self-medicating for mental health issues and/or general improvements in their quality of life.



Major Symptoms. Bar graph of self-reported major symptoms treated with cannabis by survey participants (n = 88).
In terms of personal use patterns, over 94% stated that they use it every day, which is considerably higher than the 67% reported by Reinarman et al from their California patient survey. Over 88% smoke cannabis, and 71.6% report that they eat it. Over 52% have used vaporizers, 18.2% use tinctures and, unlike Europe, less than 4% mix it with tobacco. While the rate of smoking is similar to the Reinarman et al sample, which found that 86.1% smoke cannabis, the comparatively higher use oral ingestion/edibles (71.6% v. 24.4%) and vaporizers (52% v. 21.8%) in the Canadian sample may suggest a greater level of concern and mitigation for potential health impacts associated with smoking within the Canadian patient population. This health awareness may also explain why 80.7% of respondents prefer to use cannabis grown using certified organic cultivation methods, whereas 19.3% either don't care (14.5%) or prefer non-organic cultivation (4.8%).


Methods of Ingestion. Bar graph of self-reported methods of cannabis ingestion reported by survey participants (n = 88).
In terms of patient preferences and treatment efficacy, 90.9% report that not all strains are equally effective at relieving their symptoms. As a result, 97.6% would prefer to obtain cannabis from a source that offers a "large selection of different strains" rather than 1 or 2 strains, and over 90% would prefer to have access to raw cannabis as well as other methods of ingestion like baked goods, tinctures, and hashish, compared with 9.8% who would prefer a cannabis-only outlet. 

This creates a stark contrast between access through Health Canada and through community-based dispensaries. While Health Canada offers a single strain of raw cannabis and no alternatives to smoking, dispensaries make multiple strains and methods of ingestion other than smoking available to patients, including edibles, oils, tinctures, salves, and even oromucosal sprays. 

When asked about other cannabinoid-based pharmaceutical medicines like Marinol (dronabinol), Cesamet (nabilone) and Sativex, 34.9% had tried Cesamet, 33.7% had tried Marinol, and 14% had tried Sativex. 43% had not tried any of the above, and 81.5% stated that didn't use any of these pharmaceuticals on a regular basis.

Patient Access to Medical Cannabis

When asked how they obtain cannabis, only 8.2% of respondents report getting their cannabis from Health Canada (although nearly half state that they have tried the federal supply), while 80% grow it for themselves or have it grown for them by a Designated Producer. Over 50% report that they frequent compassion clubs or dispensaries, 38.8% report getting it from a friend, and > 22% get their medicine from street dealers.




Access to Cannabis. Bar graph showing how survey participants access medical cannabis (n = 85).
When asked how they would rank the quality of the cannabis from their regular source, 87.8% rank it as 7 or above in a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "Very Poor", and 10 being "Excellent". By comparison, of the 41 patients who have tried the federal cannabis supply, over 75% rank it as either 1 or 2 on a scale of 1-10. While 3 respondents ranked it as either a 6, 7, or 8, no one ranked it any higher.

Since Health Canada's cannabis supply went through some modest improvements in regards to the size of the grind, humidity level, and amount of THC in August 2004, respondents were asked when they tried this cannabis. Of the 39 who answered this question, 37 (or > 94%) used the federal supply between 2005-2007, and 2 used it before that. As such, it can be deducted that the general dissatisfaction with the quality of the federal cannabis supply is based on patient experiences with the most recent "improved" version of this product.

When asked what their single preferred source for medical cannabis would be, 65.1% stated that they would like to grown their own, 24.1% cited dispensaries, 6% would like to get their medicine from a pharmacy, 4.8% would like to get it from a friend, while neither street dealers nor Health Canada were cited by a single patient as their preferred source. This is highly relevant since Health Canada's proposed regulatory changes include removing the right for individuals to produce their own cannabis, despite this being the preferred option cited by most study participants and the option chosen by the majority of patients in the federal program. 

As of January 2010 (the latest statistics available on the Health Canada website) 3576 out of 4884 - or over 73% - of federally authorized patients chose to produce their own medicine or to have a Designated Producer do so for them. If Health Canada intends to make this program more patient-centered, removing the right for patients to produce their own supply does not appear to reflect current patient needs, and as such this proposed significant amendment to the program should be highly controversial, and will likely lead to further court challenges by patients wishing to control the cost and quality of their supply of medicine.

Patient Experiences With Health Canada Marihuana Medical Access Division

Of study participants, nearly half (49.3%) became federally authorized patients in 2004 or later, while 50.7% joined the program prior to 2004. When asked if they had difficulty finding a physician to support their application, exactly 50% said "yes", and 50% answered "no", reflecting the diversity and unpredictability of medical support available throughout Canada

In terms of processing applications, 35.3% had theirs completed by Health Canada within 2-4 months, and 29.4% state that it took 60 days or less. However, 35.2% of participants suggest that it took over 4 months, with 17.6% citing that they waited over 12 months for their application to be processed. This suggests that for those suffering from serious or terminal conditions, processing times would be a significant concern and may not be quick enough to allow some
patients to legally use cannabis in end-of-life situations.

The following set of 6 questions put three statements with positive connotations and 3 statements with negative connotations to survey respondents, and are based on standardized and validated Short-Form Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18) traditionally used to evaluate health service delivery at hospitals, clinical and insurance companies. 

In addressing the statement "I find the application for a federal authorization simple and uncomplicated", only 21.8% "agreed" or "strongly agreed", while 71.2% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" (42.5%), suggesting that for most patients the federal application process is onerous and challenging. 

When asked to comment on the statement "Employees at Health Canada's MMAD act too businesslike and impersonal towards me", 54% "agreed" or "strongly agreed", while 28.7% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed". 

In regards to the statement "I am dissatisfied with the service I receive from Health Canada in regards to my use of medical cannabis", 68.9% "agree" or "strongly agree", while only 18.3% "disagree" or "strongly disagree". 

However, when asked if "Employees at Health Canada's MMAD treat me in a friendly and courteous manner", respondents were split, with 35.6% "agreeing" or "strongly agreeing", 27.6% "uncertain", and 36.8% "disagreeing" or "strongly disagreeing". 

When the statement "I have full confidence in the ability of the Health Canada employees that administer this program" was put to patients, 76.8% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed", with only 5.9% "agreeing" or "strongly agreeing" with the statement, and 17.4% stating that they were "uncertain". 

Finally, when asked "I am able to get help from Health Canada in regards to my medical use of cannabis whenever I need it", 8.2% "agreed" or "strongly agreed", while 70.6% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed", with 21.2% uncertain.

The final question of the survey asked participants to rate their overall satisfaction with Health Canada's medical cannabis program, and 15.1% of patients state that they are "completely" or "somewhat satisfied", 12.8% uncertain, and 72.1% either "somewhat" (20.9%) or "totally unsatisfied" (51.2%). 

This suggests a very poor patient perception of the service quality at Health Canada Marihuana Medical Access Division, with many potential improvements in application processing times, cannabis selection and quality and overall responsiveness to patient queries and concerns.





Overall Satisfaction with Health Canada Medical Cannabis Program. Bar graph of overall level of satisfaction with Health Canada's medical cannabis program reported by survey participants (n = 86).

In a federally-funded report titled "Our Rights, Our Choice,' which examined the human rights, ethical and legal challenges faced by people living with HIV/AIDS who choose to use medical cannabis, the Canadian AIDS Society found that although between 14 to 37% of people living with HIV/AIDS used cannabis to address their condition, many had faced hurdles accessing the federal program. The CAS report states that: access to the federal program remains hindered by barriers such as a lack of awareness of the program's existence, mistrust in the government, misinformation about the program and difficulty in finding a physician to support their application. 

Thousands of seriously ill Canadians must therefore choose between breaking the law to use the therapy of their choice, or going without, which in many cases compromises their well-being and quality of life.
The results of this federally authorized medical cannabis patient survey support the findings of the CAS study and other research into the MMAR/MMAD.

Discussion

Creating policies and procedures for safe patient access to medical cannabis has proven to be a challenge in Canada and around the world. In the U.S., the 14 states that allow for the legal use of cannabis continue to struggle to protect patients, address access issues, and mitigate community concerns, all of which is made all the more complicated by ongoing resistance and active legal threats by the federal government. 

In Canada, patients face multiple challenges to safe access: 
1) resistance from the medical community to act as gatekeepers to the program; 
2) an onerous application process; 
3) a very limited and much-criticized cannabis supply; 
4) limited income and a lack of national cost-coverage; and 
5) ongoing social prejudice against the use of medical cannabis. 

Results from this survey suggest that reducing bureaucratic obstacles while increasing patient options for access would result in greater levels of patient participation and overall satisfaction with the federal program.

While there is a remarkable diversity in the demographics and medical conditions of cannabis patients, some common themes emerge from this research. It is clear that patients' would like to have a choice of many different strains and forms of ingestion in order to more safely and effectively address their many different symptoms and conditions. Since cost continues to be a significant obstacle for patients with low or fixed income, provincial or federal cost-reduction or coverage policies should be implemented. 

The high bureaucratic burden on both patients and physicians is reducing participation in the program, so allowing healthcare providers to treat cannabis like any other medicine would likely improve uptake and might also alleviate some of the social stigma associated with the therapeutic use of cannabis. Since this study and Health Canada's own statistics show that the majority of participants in the Canadian federal program chose to produce their own medicine, policies and procedures should be put in place that maintain the option of personal production while also ensuring that both patients and communities are protected from the dangers of poorly-cultivated cannabis. 

This could range from basic information from Health Canada on safe production practices to electrical inspections at the municipal level. Additionally, with over half of respondents currently accessing cannabis through dispensaries and growing evidence that these organizations build social capital and provide an environment that is conducive to health and healing, the federal government should work with dispensaries to develop regulations that would incorporate this community-based model of access into Canada's medical cannabis program.

Finally, many of the challenges faced by the MMAD could have been addressed or avoided through a more robust and active strategy for patient engagement and involvement. Although there are many stakeholders directly or indirectly affected by the federal medical cannabis program - municipalities, police, physicians, etc. - the key stakeholders are the Canada's critically or chronically ill who could or do benefit from the use of cannabis. Unfortunately, the short history of the MMAR/MMAD shows that the needs and concerns of patients has all too often been ignored or overshadowed by other interests and concerns. 

The future success of this cutting-edge program will depend largely on the willingness of the federal government to create a truly patient-centered approach to medical cannabis access, including active and ongoing engagement with end-users, support for research into the potential harms and benefits of medical cannabis, and increased options for patients, potentially through the regulation of community-based dispensaries.

There are a few limitations to this study. Although participants represented about 5% of the patient population in the program at the time of the survey there is no way to know how representational this cohort is to the rest of the participants in the MMAD since Health Canada has never released any demographic information about federally authorized users. Additionally, since recruiting was largely done online and through medical cannabis patient lists and groups, it is possible that this more active population has a higher level of dissatisfaction with the federal program. 

However, the general demographics of participants in this study is similar to those identified by Reinarman in a recent U.S.-based study, and many of the patient needs and challenges that came to light in this survey support previous research on Canada's medical cannabis population and associated federal program. It is hoped that this survey, which represents the first polling ever conducted solely on federally authorized patients in Canada, will assist policy-makers here and abroad develop more patient-centered strategies for safe access to medical cannabis.

 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Too Bad They Didn't Finish This
A Hell Of A Lot Sooner!

Blaine Barrett