Summary: The Medical Marijuana Debate

The medical marijuana debate ascends from conflicting cultural views more so than the science of medicine. The controversy being the decriminalization of marijuana in order for medical providers to prescribe it as a treatment option. This paper will use an inductive argument to analyze the arguments supporting medical marijuana and against its use while avoiding arguments supporting marijuana’s recreational use. The benefits of legalizing marijuana outweigh the associated risk factors as marijuana can be used to treat neurological disorders, chemotherapy patients, loss of appetite and weight related to AIDS, glaucoma, and many more health related issues. Marijuana is a safer treatment option and less toxic than many of the harsh drugs currently

used to treat illnesses.
The stigmatization of marijuana is the result of its illegalization, the United States government illegalized marijuana on the basis that it is a Schedule I drug. This means it is a highly addictive drug and has high potential for abuse, other drugs classified as Schedule I include heroin, LSD, ecstasy, etc. Factors that affect the classification of a drug are its accepted medical use and potential for dependency, marijuana has been proven to be an effective treatment for patients suffering and as a palliative care. The evidence concludes that it does have an accepted medical use, and should be reclassified as a Schedule II drug in order for a physician to prescribe marijuana as a medical treatment.
The ban on medical marijuana is a violation of the physician-patient relationship as physicians have a duty to ease the pain and suffering of their patients. Appealing to the ethical principle of autonomy, patients have the right to be informed about every treatment option with the ability to choose the form of treatment available to them. Not allowing physicians to prescribe medical marijuana violates the principle of nonmalefecence (first, do no harm) and as a result they would be failing to offer effective treatments in order to relieve the pain and suffering of their patients. To deny a patient knowledge and access to anything that would improve their quality of life is a clear violation of a physician’s simple duties.
THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) in medicinal marijuana has shown to be effective in relieving nausea and/or vomiting in patients suffering from the side effects of chemotherapy or AIDS (Barnes, 2000, p. 18). One specific case where marijuana proved to be more than beneficial is of a young girl named Charlotte Figi who was diagnosed with Dravet syndrome at three-months old. Charlotte suffered from over 50 epileptic seizures a day, experienced delayed motor and cognitive skills, and was often fed via a feeding tube. None of the antiepileptic medications she was prescribed were proving to be effective and as a last resort epileptologists recommended she be treated with a phytocannabinoid called CDB. CDB is an isolated component of marijuana that delivers relief from epileptic attacks without any psychotropic side effects, meaning there is no “high” from this form or marijuana (Maa & Figi, 2014, p. 784). Charlotte was fortunate enough to be living in one of the 23 states that allow marijuana as a medical treatment and the results of being treated with CDB reduced the frequency of Charlotte’s seizures from 50 a day to two or three a month, she has now been weaned off all other antiepileptic medications and now has an overall better quality of life. Since it was discovered that CDB was extremely beneficial of children seizure disorders many children are now benefiting from this application.
The strain of marijuana used to treat Charlotte is now called Charlotte’s Web and has provoked hundreds of families coping with ordeals similar to Charlotte’s to move to states that allow medical marijuana in order to receive the same treatment for their children. The medical community’s as well as the political community’s ban on medicinal marijuana is immoral and is forcing these families to become “medical refugees” as they could risk being arrested for trafficking or child abuse in their home states for medicating their children with marijuana (Sides, 2015). The government is unjustified in preventing the sick from obtaining this form of treatment. The unresponsiveness patients are suffering from current available medications and the remarkable medical evidence of the benefits should be enough validation to stop legislation from withholding marijuana as a treatment option.
In Peter A. Clark’s journal article The Ethics of Medical Marijuana: Government Restrictions vs. Medical Necessity he discusses whether it is morally acceptable for the government to restrict medical marijuana. Every human action has an intended good effect and an unintended evil effect, Clark applies the ethical principle of double effect to establish if marijuana meets the criteria for all four conditions then it would justify the action as moral. If marijuana does not satisfy the four conditions then the act will be considered immoral.
- Condition 1: “The action, considered by itself and independently of its effects, must not be morally evil. The object of the action must be good or indifferent”
- Condition 2: “The evil effect must not be the means of producing the good effect”
- Condition 3: “The evil effect is sincerely not intended, but merely tolerated”
- Condition 4: “There must be a proportionate reason for performing the action, in spite of the evil consequences”
(J, 2000, p. 49)
Medical marijuana satisfies Condition 1 because the act of using marijuana is not evil; in fact it is used to treat certain conditions that cannot be effectively treated via other means. The goal is not to reassure the use of illegal drugs but rather to ease the pain and suffering of patients. Condition 2 is satisfied because the harm associated with marijuana only accompanies it; it does not produce the good effect. The criteria for Condition 3 are met because marijuana is intended to give patients relief from their illnesses. Last, condition 4 is also satisfied because the good effects outweigh the bad and no other alternative is better. Marijuana does come with its health risks but this is outweighed by its medical value and lack of a better equivalent treatment.
The major objection against marijuana for medical purposes is based on the premise that marijuana is a gateway drug that prompts patients to use harsher illicit drugs and that marijuana is not proven to be safe or medically effective. This objection is significant for the reason that there is a dearth of lack in scientific evidence to support the notion that marijuana use will lead an individual to use or abuse harder drugs. In contradiction, marijuana has been proven to be safe and effective as a treatment option. In 1999, 11 experts from the Institute of Medicine released an analysis on the medical uses of marijuana; this analysis was based on a two-year study commissioned by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study revealed there was toxicity in marijuana smoke and it should only be utilized as a short-term treatment option (Stolberg, 1999). Since this study, scientists recognized the real benefits of medicinal marijuana through the development of patches, inhalers, and capsules which delivers the active component (cannabinoids) without the harmful effects of smoke (J, 2000, p. 49).
The moral notion for legislation prohibiting marijuana as a medical treatment is its potential to cause harm.

The benefits of marijuana outweigh the harm and because medical marijuana meets the principle of double effects four conditions, it is morally acceptable to allow physicians to prescribe it. Morally acceptable actions should not be illegal and the government should reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug for it to be considered “legal”. Failing to permit physicians to prescribe marijuana as a treatment option is a violation of the ethical principle of nonmaleficence as they are unable to provide an effective treatment for their patients thus leading to the patients harm. The therapeutic advantages of prescribing medical marijuana outweigh the risks and can improve a patient’s quality of life by preventing and relieving suffering. The ultimate goal of a physician is employing a form of treatment that will produce the most benefit and elude the most harm to the patient. It is respect for a patient’s autonomy and the duty of a physician to provide care that leads to my conclusion that is it morally and ethically sound to legalize marijuana and permit its use for medical treatment and

therapy.
Given this discussion further consideration should be the justification of demanding the federal government’s acknowledgment of the medicinal properties marijuana possess thus rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule II controlled substance.

Granting the approval for marijuana to be utilized for medical purposes will support further research on its benefits and can prime the FDA’s approval of this substance. Currently, 23 states allow for the medicinal use of marijuana and upon these considerations more states should follow in suit.

References
Barnes, R. E. (2000). Reefer Madness: Legal & Moral Issues Surrounding the Medical Prescription of Marijuana. Bioethics. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00178
davidagler.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.davidagler.com/teaching/bioethics/drugs/Handout6_EthicsOfMedicalMarijuana_Clark_v2
J, C. P. (2000). The Ethics of Medical Marijuana: Government Restrictions vs. Medical Necessity.
Maa, E., & Figi, P. (2014). The case for medical marijuana in epilepsy. FigiEpilepsia,55(6), 783-786. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epi.12610/full
Sides, H. (2015, June). Science Seeks to Unlock Marijuana’s Secrets. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/marijuana/sides-text
Stolberg, S. G. (1999, March 18). Government Study On Marijuana Sees Medical Benefits. New York

Times.