Peaceful Feeling, or Up in Smoke? Medical Marijuana in Medicolegal Context
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Mossman, I practice in a state that allows use. A few of my patients have asked me to help them obtain for their conditions. How risky would it be to oblige? Submitted by Dr. J In recent years, public debate about has acquired 2 new dimensions: (1) wishes and needs of people who seek for its purported health benefits, and (2) role of physicians who practice where medical is legal. This article, authors' joint effort to address J's concerns, hits 3 topics: * intersection of policy and health care in United States * risks and possible benefits of use * medicolegal problems faced by physicians who might advise patients to use Legal haze Two cannabinoids--dronabinol and nabilone--have received FDA approval as appetite enhancers and anti-nausea agents. Third-party payors usually cover these types of medications, but no insurer pays for (1) The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (2) classified as a Schedule I drug because of its abuse potential, lack of accepted applications, and uncertain safety. The FDA has not approved use for any condition. Although people commonly speak of marijuana, physicians cannot legally do this in United States. What physicians may do, in 23 states that allow marijuana, is recommend or certify a patient's use--an action that has constitutional protection under First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. (3,4) A physician may complete documentation that a patient has one of qualifying conditions for which jurisdiction has legalized Either patient or physician then submits that documentation to appropriate government agency (eg, state's department of health). If documentation receives approval, agency will issue patient a registration card that allows possession of marijuana, with which patient can obtain or grow a small amount of The cannabinoid content of products varies considerably, (5) and physicians who certify typically defer dosage recommendations to patient or dispensary. (1) In states that allow marijuana, users may assert an affirmative defense of necessity if they face criminal prosecution. (3,6) Possession of remains illegal under federal law, however, regardless of one's reason for having it. (7,8) Since October 2009, Attorney General's office has discouraged federal prosecutions of persons whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for use of marijuana. (9) But given remaining conflicts between state and federal laws, the legal implications of certifying patients for remain unclear. (10) Physicians have few resources to instruct them on legal risks of certifying When Canada legalized marijuana, organization that provides malpractice insurance to Canadian physicians told its members that cannot be compared to prescribing prescription drugs and recommended that physicians obtain signed release forms documenting that they have discussed risks of with patients. (11) For some risky approved drugs, FDA has established a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, but no such guidance is available for Highlighting benefits and risks Proponents of claim that Cannabis can help patients, and dispassionate experts acknowledge that at least modest evidence supports benefits of using marijuana for nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy, specific pain syndromes, and spasticity from multiple sclerosis. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».