Hello Cannabis Culture.

My spouse suffers from chronic pain associated with fibromyalgia, and uses Marijuana for pain relief when she can(Provided we can afford it) her doctor does not support her use of marijuana for pain relief and has her on ratio-oxycocet, Perks. She does not wish to be on them forever but has been on them so long she is addicted and actually scared of the pain associated with the withdrawl of opiates not to mention the pain she suffers from fibromyalgia without the 2 above medicines.

She has been assessed by her Rheumatologist but did not have the courage to ask her at the time if marijuana might have been acceptable by her. I left a message with her Rheumatologists office regarding a call back but they never replied. She goes to see the Rheumatologist in september, but i do not wish to wait this long as I am being force to communicate with the black market in order to get her medication that she perfers, the perks her doctor gives her she uses for last resort if we cannot afford to buy marijuana from the black market dealers which sell it for far more than i could grow it myself if she were to get her form signed, but as everyone knows that with less than 0.1% of the doctors in canada are willing to sign them it is a monumental task for a C2 condition to get their card if their family doctor does not support it.

The idea of doctor shopping to me is not appealing at all and with the averages she could expect to see on average say 70 doctors before one will sign(60000 doctors in canada, 940 in ontario that will sign,so perhaps less than 70 but still more than 10) referrals to doctors take time, which could mean years before finding a doctor willing to accept that my spouse wishes to self medicate in regards to her pain she experiences daily from fibromyalgia.

Judges rulings time and time again seem to help those that disregard the law and decide to forgoe the doctors signatures and decide to grow themselves or are caught possessing it without their card. After the fact they have criminal allegations against them.

in the reasons for judgement in R V Mernagh it was stated that a patient that is in my spouse's position IE Diagnosed eligible but cannot find a doctor to support them should apply for a remedy..

[339] There does not appear to be any authority for the remedy sought by Mr. Lewin. Furthermore, consideration of the language of s.24(1) of the Charter which gives the court the ability to grant personal remedies like consitutional exemptions, suggests that there is no jurisdiction to provide a remedy to a person who is not party to the litigation. The provision specifically requires a party whose rights or freedoms have been infringed to apply to the courts for a remedy. There is therefore no constitutional jurisdiction to award a personal remedy to an individual who has not come before the court to seek one.

Now, what i gather from that is the judge felt it's up to a patients responsiblity that if they cannot find a doctor to sign them they have to bring their case to a court and the judge can grant them a constitutional exemption but only to those who come before them and request one.

I called a lawyer today and he said i have no ammunition, how is it that a citizen that has no criminal allegations against them has no ammunition and less supposed rights but someone who has criminal allegations against them has ammunition, that to me does not make any sense.

I am in talks with Green Leaf Medical Clinic and am waiting to hear from them, if they cannot help her i feel my only option would be to try this one.

Robert Frost - "The jury consist of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer."

You sound like a smart person. You are better off doing your own research and a little studying than using any lawyer. IMO lawyers are just for people who want to lose.
I havent read the case you mentioned, but I would say your interpretation is a good one. No ammunition?? How so? Your spouse has been injured by these doctors for not prescribing the appropriate medicine. You have a case in civil court against the doctors at least.

it's not entirely the doctors faults tho, cpso and insurance companies have told doctors not to deal with the MMAR, which infringes upon her rights to a reasonable access to her medicine.

Either way, it seems a number a patients should come forward before the court pro-actively rather than after a criminal charge has been placed.

I am going to be talking to her doctor next week and need to build a case, and see if i can't settle this between us before i present myself to the courts.

Is citing case rulings evidence for mounting a case? Because if it is, R V Mernagh is prime citing material for my spouse.

Any Lawyers in the house that aren't greedy and could extend some actual useful advice.

There is a maxim of law: In consimili casu consilile debet esse remedium. In similar cases the remedy should be similar. Hard. 65

“The right of self-determination which underlies the doctrine of informed consent also obviously encompasses the right to refuse medical treatment. A competent adult is generally entitled to reject a specific treatment or all treatment, or to select an alternate form of treatment, even if the decision may entail risks as serious as death and may appear mistaken in the eyes of the medical profession or of the community. Regardless of the doctor’s opinion, it is the patient who has the final say on whether to undergo the treatment. The patient is free to decide, for instance, not to be operated on or not to undergo therapy or, by the same token, not to have a blood transfusion. If a doctor were to proceed in the face of a decision to reject the treatment, he would be civilly liable for his unauthorized conduct notwithstanding his justifiable belief that what he did was necessary to preserve the patient’s life or health. The doctrine of informed consent is plainly intended to ensure the freedom of individuals to make choices concerning their medical care. For this freedom to be meaningful, people must have the right to make choices that accord with their own values regardless of how unwise or foolish those choices may appear to others…” (para. 135)

a passage from the ontario court of a appeal in the case Malette V Shulman

Basically states that if a doctor refuses your form of alternate treatment he has infringed upon your rights. As it states a person has the right to make choices that accord with their own values regardless of how unwise or foolish their choices may appear to others..."

Exactly!! Like I said above any doctor who refuses to prescribe cannabis for you, has caused you injury and you have a civil case against them.

I can't speak for others here, but personally I'm getting tired of your sporatic quotations showing up in many threads. Please stick to the topic at hand.

^^ Ditto

So i sent an email to Green Leaf Medical Clinic this morning to see how my spouses application was going, they stated they have tried to request her medical records twice from her doctor once on the 12th and once on the 21st and they are going to try and contact them again today.

Seems to me like he is discriminating against cannabis use, he is perfectly fine with perscribing harmful opiates however.