Medical marijuana initiatives - Are they justified? How successful are they likely to be?

The principal constituent of cannabis, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is moderately effective in treating nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, and acute and chronic pain. Oral THC (dronabinol) and the synthetic cannabinoid, nabilone, have been registered for medical use in the US and UK, but they have not been widely used because patients find it difficult to titrate doses of these drugs. Advocates for the medical use of cannabis argue that patients should be allowed to smoke cannabis to relieve these above-mentioned symptoms. Some US state governments have legislated to allow the medical prescription of cannabis, but the US federal government has tried to prevent patients from obtaining cannabis and threatened physicians who prescribe it with criminal prosecution or loss of their licence to practise. In the UK and Australia, committees of inquiry have recommended medical prescription (UK) and exemption from criminal prosecution (New South Wales, Australia), but governments have not accepted these recommendations. The Canadian government allows an exemption from criminal prosecution to patients with specified medical conditions. It has recently legislated to provide cannabis on medical prescription to registered patients, but this scheme so far has not been implemented. Some advocates argue that legalising cannabis is the only way to ensure that patients can use it for medical purposes. However, this would be contrary to international drug control treaties and is electorally unpopular. The best prospects for the medical use of cannabinoids lie in finding ways to deliver THC that do not involve smoking and in developing synthetic cannabinoids that produce therapeutic effects with a minimum of psychoactive effects. While awaiting these developments, patients with specified medical conditions could be given exemptions from criminal prosecution to grow cannabis for their own use, at their own risk.

Effect of functional gain on satisfaction with medical rehabilitation after stroke

Objective: To examine the association between gain in motor and cognitive functional status with patient satisfaction 3-6 mo after rehabilitation discharge. Design: Patient satisfaction and changes in functional status were examined in 18,375 patients with stroke who received inpatient medical rehabilitation. Information was obtained from 144 hospitals and rehabilitation facilities contributing records to the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation and the National Follow-up Services. Results: Data analysis revealed significant (P < 0.05) differences in satisfaction responses based on whether information was collected from patient self-report or from a family member proxy, and the two subsets were analyzed separately. Logistic regression revealed the following significant predictors of satisfaction for data collected from stroke patients: cognitive and motor gain, rehospitalization, who the patient was living with at follow-up, age, and follow-up therapy. In the patient-reported data subset, compared with patients who showed improved cognitive or motor functional status, those with no change, respectively, had a 31% and 33% reduced risk of dissatisfaction. In addition, rehospitalized patients had a higher risk of dissatisfaction. For the proxy reported data subset, significant influences on satisfaction were health maintenance, rehospitalization, stroke type, ethnicity, cognitive FIM(TM) gain, length of stay, and follow-up therapy. Conclusions: Ratings of satisfaction with rehabilitation services were affected by change in functional status and whether the information was collected from patient rating or proxy response.

Graduate entry to medical studies: thoughts from 'down under' (editorial)

This invited editorial, reflecting on expectations of changing to graduate entry, eg enhanced maturity in the student cohort with greater self-sufficiency and taking of responsibility for learning in the context of adoption of a problem-based learning model, examines experiences of early post-change years and raises questions for contemplation by medical schools considering graduate entry.