Clinical judgement is meant to guide treatment, yet current regulation prevents prescribers from using the route that may offer the fastest and safest relief. All effective medicines carry risks; they’re used because the benefits outweigh the risks. Cannabis should be judged by the same standard.
The clause was inserted during the 2018 drafting process without accompanying equality analysis or consultation. It created an internal contradiction within the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 that persists today.
Regulation 16A(3) prohibits clinicians from prescribing the only form that may be clinically appropriate. The briefing examines how this fetters clinical discretion and exposes prescribers to ethical conflict.
Professional standards require treatment based on individual need and best evidence. The analysis compares regulatory barriers with duties under GMC Good Medical Practice and NICE principles.
When patients are forced onto slower or less effective routes, risks rise – including loss of symptom control and relapse to illicit sources.
Annex E outlines options for regulatory reform: controlled-use licensing, monitored prescribing, and equality-compliant revision of Regulation 16A(3).
Clinicians are effectively prohibited from prescribing the only form of medication that may be clinically appropriate. Discrimination by Design examines how this anomaly arose – and how it can be remedied. Click the button below to view and/or download our Discrimination by Design briefing document.