Ethical considerations of medical cannabis prescription

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Despite analgesic and emetogenic benefits, cannabis has been banned from prescription in a number of western countries. Although some benefits are shared by drugs already available, the options of prescription are limited to the physician. The negative side-effects of cannabis do not justify this limitation on freedom and autonomy. Recreational use warrants limitations, as the search for euphoria is regularly believed to be a non-autonomous behavior. Medical prescriptions serve an analgesic and emetogenic purpose comparable to other prescribed drugs. This vindicates the right for a physician to prescribe cannabis to qualified patients. For a patient to be considered qualified, they must be an adult that does not drive often, is not pregnant, and not at risk of schizophrenia or cardiovascular disease. If possible, cannabis should be eaten in an effort to avoid smoke irritation in the lungs and aerodigestive tract. In the end, the question is not whether cannabis use is efficable, but rather is the limitation of medical treatments to patients in need ethical? In light of the medical benefits, the banning of cannabis is simply immoral. Keywords: cannabis, banned substance, prescription, analgesic, emetogenic Note. Authors did not receive any external funding, nor display conflict of interest.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
233 ( #27,812 of 64,210 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #38,904 of 64,210 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.