Jayden David has suffered from a rare form of epilepsy, Dravet
syndrome, which is so severe it essentially left him incapacitated. His father
described his condition when he said “If he wasn't sleeping, he was seizing.”
Before Jayden turned five he had tried more than a dozen different medications
to try and at least reduce the severity of the seizures if not eliminate them. None
of these treatments worked, and as a last resort Jayden’s father turned to a new
and controversial treatment, medical marijuana.
While drastic the treatment seems to be
working. Jayden now only takes four prescription pills a day, eats solid food,
sings and dances, and the frequency and intensity of his seizures has been
greatly reduced.
It should also
be noted that Jayden does not take any medication that contains THC, the psychoactive
portion of the drug that gives users a high. The drugs he takes only contain cannabidiol,
which has no psychoactive effects.
The
question that becomes apparent is how appropriate is it to treat a five year
old boy with medical marijuana? Medical marijuana, while legal in California
where Jayden lives, is still illegal according to federal law. Even more importantly
there has been no research into the effect of cannabidiol on the developing
brain. Although there are known changes in brain structure that occur in adult
brains of marijuana users no testing has been done in children. If the same
types of changes occur in children’s developing brains there can be huge long-term
negative side effects. However, with all this being said it’s hard to argue
with the success of the treatment so far.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-customized-marijuana-20120914,0,7012444.story?page=1
1 comment:
I think in this situation, in compliance with the state law, the decision to administer medical marijuana to a five-year-old child with Dravet syndrome was ethical. The article makes it clear that Jayden’s parents turned to cannabidiol as a last resort after they had exhausted all other traditional interventions with no success. The parents were reasonably informed of the risks of exposing their son with epilepsy to an untested drug. In their view, perhaps out of profound desperation, the potential benefit to his health outweighed them. Legally, the parents had the full right to make this choice, and Jayden’s medical improvement due to the treatment suggests that the decision was made in the child’s best interest. Whether this mode of treatment is advisable, even for similar cases; however, is a different matter.
Cannabidiol is a form of alternative medicine. Unlike drugs in the market, it has not undergone rigorous screening for safety. Although studies have shown no adverse effects of cannabidiol in adults and animals, “the long-term effect on children is unknown.” Dr. Donald Olsen, director of Stanford University’s pediatric epilepsy program, like most physicians, would not recommend medical marijuana to any of his patients. He sees this as a violation of the principle in medical ethics to do no harm, since cannabidiol has not been tested at all in children. Except in the severest of cases, when no other treatment has worked, relying on a drug that is still highly experimental is imprudent. Jayden’s case should not set a precedent for future cases of children with Dravet syndrome. Evidence that medical marijuana relieved epilepsy in one child is not enough to confirm that the treatment enhances a child’s overall wellbeing. Understanding the long-term consequences of the drug on the brain is crucial. Without this critical information, it becomes impossible to accurately judge whether the benefits actually outweigh the risks.
Post a Comment