Cannabis and a strange medical village

826

In his discussion of the question of which articles of state power are to blame by the huge number of sick and Old people are forced by stupid laws and regulations to treat their health problems with chemicals that The vast majority of them not only do not help from the problems they now have, but still give them more, and often much worse, it will cause, if it would really be enough for them to grow a flower in their garden, which would be absolutely she got rid of most of their health problems, and she would not bring any others to them.

In that September article, I reflected on the actions and actions of the police.

In an October article, I then discussed the role of politicians and various government officials.

In today's November, I would like to deal with the thinking and actions of another group of people. People who already have our respect for tradition, because we place them among those who save our health and lives. This is a doctor. What is their role in creating and maintaining the truly deplorable situation of medical cannabis?

When Act No. 50/2013 Coll. accepted, the staff of SÚKL began to work very feverishly on their measures of a general nature (PPE) 04 - 13, which specified what the conditions will be for obtaining medical cannabis from a pharmacy. There are two conditions:

1 / The patient must have a special prescription from a doctor who has a license to prescribe medical cannabis.

2 / The patient must be a multiple millionaire, preferably a billionaire.

The first condition is written quite clearly in this PPE. The other is hidden there. But it was the enforcement of this condition that was most at stake with the State Office for Drug Control. And even against the will of the legislator!

And they succeeded in classifying medical cannabis among unpaid drugs and in imposing an unreasonably high price. It would cost my daughter CZK 840,000 a year.

How many disabled pensioners do you know in our state who could afford it?

And why do I believe that these conditions were adopted against the will of the legislator?

Director of the Drug Policy Department of the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic Mgr. Jindřich Vobořil wrote:

1) The proposal not to reimburse cannabis from public health insurance is in conflict with previous considerations concerning the price and availability of medical cannabis, which were voiced in the preparation of the above-mentioned law in two working groups of which representatives of the Ministry of Health and SÚKL were members. The categorical negation of the payment of cannabis from public health insurance did not fall at the meetings of the working groups. On the contrary, the possibility of reimbursement, even a partial one, was discussed.

2) “The proposal not to reimburse cannabis from public health insurance is in sharp conflict with two legal objectives and will not fulfill the presumed benefit of the law in cutting off the medical use of cannabis from the illegal market with it. There is therefore a risk that the area of legal treatment for cannabis and cannabis products will be significantly threatened by the supply of cannabis from illegal sources.

3) "In formulating a draft measure of a general nature, SÚKL probably did not take into account the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of treatment with cannabis and cannabis products."

All of us who need cannabis to heal ourselves or to heal our loved ones, so somehow out of inertia we are constantly cursing our policies. And we only consider them guilty of the abnormal situation where a human being must break the law in order to be effectively treated. In other words, when to treat is illegal.

But I have the more and more impression that we are barking at the wrong tree.

The time when it was illegal to treat cannabis ended four years ago.

With the adoption of Act No. 50/2013 Coll., The door to cannabis as a medicine has finally been opened here in the Czech Republic. And the fact that it has become such a pastime that allows the use of medical cannabis only to a selected group of people, which has already been arranged by someone completely different.

So who are the gray eminences in the background to whom the legalization of medical cannabis is so terribly against fur for everyone? Who are those who spin the handle of the meat grinder and grind in it all the old, sick and helpless? And what values do these people profess when human suffering and human life mean absolutely nothing to them?

Who in that organization with such a lavish name, the State Office for Drug Control, decides which drug will come to the Czech market (understand pharmacies) and which will not, and also decides whether it will be reimbursed or not? Are they politicians? Or officials?

canatura-1

No. They are not. They are people with medical degrees. They judge and recommend. And they are too
accomplices to the utterly abnormal state in which this organization divides drugs into those that are for all and those that are only for the elect. For patients who are a little more than the one down there somewhere. And how to recognize such a TOP patient? He has money. A lot of money. And therefore it has power. And he will also arrange for the "crumbs" from this business to fall on them as well. And that "down there" is someone desperate that his child is dying? "But please, we must all die. And that we allow someone to live longer? So what, he has money. So why couldn't he live longer ?! ” Does he want to vomit from such thinking? To me, yes.

When I applied to the review physician at VZP with a request to reimburse my daughter for medical cannabis, because according to neurologists, there is currently no other drug that would relieve her or at least alleviate the accompanying symptoms of her disease without he did not endanger his life, so she wrote me that my daughter had not yet tried synthetic THC, opium, botulinum toxin and some other dryers. The opinion of specialist doctors that these drugs could have fatal consequences for the daughter was declared unprofessional by this dentist.

When I turned to the director of VZP with the same thing, he wrote me that he could not allow the payment of medical cannabis, because he had to proceed with the care of a proper manager.

What is working with the care of a proper manager in a health insurance company? That the rich have the right to survive and the old and the poor to death only?

The message is clear:
"Do you have cancer and would biological treatment help you? You won't get her. Get chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and if that doesn't help, just die. Does your child suffer from bullous epidermolysis (butterfly wing disease), he has huge problems every day, and would you like means for them to humanize his dying? He won't get them. Take what we give you, and if you can't buy more medicine for your child, let him die. Does your child need special spa care that is the only one that can get rid of the worst symptoms of his illness? Pay them. And if you don't have it, collect six trucks of PET-bottle caps in a year. That you can't repeat it every year? Well, get rid of it and let your child die. Does your daughter suffer from a progressive form of multiple sclerosis, our medications do not help her against the symptoms of this disease, and you would like medical cannabis for her, which has kept her alive for twelve years and suppresses those symptoms very effectively? He won't get anything. Where would we go? Are you saying that you have to keep breaking the law all the time because of our attitude, and that you are in danger of many years in prison just because you want to provide your daughter with an effective medicine? Well, don't do it. We add enough opium to her, she dies in peace and the problem is solved. "

This is the reasoning of the representatives of such organizations as SÚKL or VZP. All of them. This also means those who sponsor this organization with their medical degrees. It is normal?

From the correspondence and telephone calls I have with these organizations, I understand that they, among other things, justify their actions by the opinions of professional medical organizations, such as the Czech Neurological Society. So I wrote there and I wanted to know what led them to it.

From their previous chairman and current vice-chairman, Professor MUDr. Karel Šonka, DrSc, I learned that he is very sorry for our daughter's condition, but that he will never support the opinion that medical cannabis should be covered by health insurance. "In general, I cannot recommend that the health system reimburse any procedure whose effect and safety have not been documented." he wrote.

How is it possible that in the United States, Canada, Israel, or neighboring Germany, they consider cannabis treatment to be a system and procedure that is sufficiently safe and documented, and not in our country? The professor certainly speaks English and certainly reads professional journals. As it is possible, he has not yet come across one that deals with the research and practical use of cannabis in treatment. Does he suffer from some form of blindness that every time a word of cannabis appears, his eyes close?

So I turned with the same question to the current chairman of the CNS, Professor MUDr. Josef Bednařík, CSc. But I didn't get an answer from him at all. So I called him. His secretary took it and told me that the professor would not deal with it at all, and that I should find someone else. Then prof. Doc. MUDr. Pavel Štourač, Ph.D., who is said to be an expert on this issue. I called him. He listened to me and then told me that I should turn to the whole organization as such with the question why the CNS representatives hold this opinion. It's a strange opinion. But I will do it. Just today, I just didn't have the mental strength to do it.

We live in a strange time. We have teachers who have sex with their students and it seems normal to them. We have priests who teach the word of God and then rape little boys. We have politicians who swear to serve their people, and then their only concern is how to rob those people. We have doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath and then team up with pharmaceutical companies against their patients. And people don't seem to mind that much. If the teacher does not rape their daughter, then it is just a flight on which he will have a good time. We continue to elect politicians and political parties that resemble the unions of thieves and tunnelers, and to justify it, we only need one person to change in that political party - their chairman. Many just snort at the priests raping the little boys that their parents shouldn't have put them there. And the doctors? What should I write about it?

Physicians should treat what actually treats the patient and what also has the least detrimental effect on patients. After all, they also promise it in their oath. Instead, we have our medical scene divided into two groups. The first group are the doctors down there, at the level of ordinary people. Doctors who know their patients and are really trying to help them. And even by non-traditional means and procedures. They are simply fulfilling their oath, and consider their vocation a mission. In our case, these are, for example, doctors Nováková and Skrášková, or, for example, another member of the medical community, who has been growing cannabis for her daughter in her garden for several years and never wanted anything for it.

There are other people in the second group. They have a high position and sit in influential and decisive positions. These people have excellent contacts with politicians and also with pharmaceutical companies. It is no longer so important for these people whether patients receive the most appropriate medication for them. It is more important for them to act with due diligence.

In principle, they also do not believe in natural remedies, such as cannabis. And so, despite the fact that cannabis has never killed anyone and has helped and is helping a huge number of people, they are doing what they can from their influential positions so that people do not get to it. On the contrary, they cannot allow synthetic drugs, which have already killed millions of people, even if they were dosed only by doctors.

All doctors take the Hippocratic oath. It also contains the following sentence:
"I will perform medical procedures in the interest and for the benefit of the patient, according to my abilities and judgment. I avoid anything that would be detrimental (to the patient) and that would not be right. "

How is the actions of doctors connected to SÚKL or VZP in line with this sentence, who make such a furious effort to prevent the availability of a drug with directly amazing therapeutic effects and at the same time with minimal adverse side effects? How many drugs do you know about which you do not have to worry about overdose? How many drugs do you know, ranging from arthritis or airway inflammation to otherwise incurable types of epilepsy, and from Crohn's and Alzheimer's disease to skin, colon and intracranial cancer?

Do these people still help primarily patients, or do they mainly have their account in mind?

And what does Hippocrates mean to them? Just a joke? Just an annoying detail on the way to big money?

In the past, people who broke their oath were executed. Today, such people sit in very influential places and execute the poorest of the poor with their decisions. Those who no longer have the strength to defend themselves.

I think we should think about whether we are doing enough to change this situation. I do not want anyone to know that he or anyone he loves has been diagnosed with a progressive form of multiple sclerosis or some other evil disease that would condemn him to suffering and to the inevitable waiting for premature death. I really don't wish this on anyone. But it can happen. And so it would be good if these people no longer have to go through the long-term martyrdom that we had to and still have to go through. The martyrdom of begging, arguing and going through a person with completely unworthy processes of proving, when even the most conspicuous and convincing evidence is simply not accepted, without any argument.

Today, I, my wife and especially our daughter are in such a situation. Tomorrow it may be you or your child. Do you think we're doing enough to keep this from happening?