Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34719005›Full record

ReviewMonash bioethics review2021

Children as voices and images for medicinal cannabis law reform.

Ian Freckelton Ao Qc

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Monash bioethics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ian Freckelton Ao QcCastan Chambers, Melbourne, Australia. I.Freckelton@vicbar.com.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7509-6375
Australian Football League · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article situates the movement for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis within the bigger picture of the impetus toward recreational cannabis legalisation. It describes the role played by children with epileptic syndromes in the medicinal cannabis law reform campaigns in the United Kingdom, and Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria in Australia. Noting the 'rule of rescue' and the prominence in media campaigns of children in Australian and English cases of parental disputation with clinicians about treatment for their children, it reviews whether paediatric epilepsy is a suitable test case for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis. Taking into account the vested commercial interests of Big Cannabis, the current medico-scientific knowledge of the efficacy of medicinal cannabis in controlling paediatric epileptic seizures, and issues of dignity, health privacy, and the enduring digital footprints of media coverage, the article commences discussion about the ethics of the media, parents, politicians and entrepreneurial doctors utilising parents' testimonials about the effects of medicinal cannabis as part of the cannabis law reform movement.

Indexed as

CannabisEpilepsyLegislation, DrugMedical MarijuanaAustraliaChildHumansUnited KingdomMedical MarijuanaCannabis legalisationChildren as voicesEthical issuesLaw reformMedical marijuanaMedicinal cannabisPaediatric epilepsy

Identifiers

PMID34719005
PMCPMC8557259
OpenAlexW3209494172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.