Cannabis, endometriosis, and a high time?

The article proposing cannabis for the treatment of endometriosis is superficially argued and shows disdain concerned patient care.1 For medical profession, addition another dangerous drug into mainstream medication market a serious consideration. Maybe authors it ‘high time’ wider use have warped sense humour? they not read about psychotic-inducing detrimental mental health issues associated with consumption. Or its intoxication consequent poor short-term decision-making, hindered social coordination mounting driving errors. demotivation links to educational drop-out rates, or habituation, addiction, disorder potential. In calling debate on pros cons medicinal in gynaecology, even most myopic protagonists would concede there are dangers as an analgesic. choosing focus narrow analgesic endometriosis, avoid any perspective. Their ‘considerable’ mention demerits medications treat fair, but their failure immediate long-term side-effects hardly even-handed. As researchers ‘undertaking randomised controlled trials’ will surely present drawbacks readers' consideration? There single word suggest may be treating pain – let alone general gynaecology obstetrics. Solid pharmaceutical evidence (or other gynaecological condition) lacking agree ‘urgently’ needed. However, argue that such trials ‘are by no means essential prerequisite prior prescription’ - rationale this disregard being replacement ‘by diversity approaches involve analysing totality base.’ Say what? But base clear drug, so failing accept facts when go against your premise illogical unprofessional. Prescribing one agent rather than has effect underlying cause can only hope persuade think she ‘better’. Homeopathy claims ‘if you better, then better.’ Analgesic roulette homeopathy what suffers should offered.2 Evidence-based medicine rests three pillars, best available evidence, clinical expertise, preferences. produced favour thus far equivocal anecdotal. experience Australia New Zealand minimal unpublished, preferences only, protagonists' words, ‘worthy continued investigation’. latest systematic review concludes interpreting existing studies precludes ‘a definitive statement gynaecologic relief’.3 Asking doctors ‘wait higher level evidence’ before prescribing obstetrics speculative at best, principles good medicine, especially view which demands caution.4 Let us weigh benefits harms progress our discipline act patients' interests.