Medical cannabis prescribing in the UK: context, concerns, and clinical standards
March 29, 2026 | IN NEWS | BY Kate Thorpe
Recent reporting, including in today’s The Times, has raised a number of important questions about medical cannabis prescribing in the UK. These include prescribing volumes, use in psychiatric conditions, product strength, and the death of Oliver Robinson. These are serious issues and require careful, balanced consideration.
The role of the Medical Cannabis Clinicians Society is not to defend or speak for clinics or to promote prescribing. Our role is to support clinicians to practise safely, improve standards, and contribute to the development of a responsible, evidence-informed model of care in a complex and evolving area of medicine.
This article sets out our position.
On the tragic death of Oliver Robinson
The death of Oliver Robinson was tragic and deeply concerning. Following the publication of the Coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths Report, we undertook a full review of the findings. This has directly informed a substantial revision of our Good Practice Guidance, due for publication April 2026. The updated guidance strengthens expectations across:
- assessment, including psychiatric risk
- prescribing decision-making
- monitoring and follow-up
- communication with other clinicians
- clinical governance frameworks
Where standards need to be strengthened, they should be. We would welcome these expectations being adopted more formally within regulatory frameworks to support consistent, high-quality care across the sector.
On psychiatric prescribing and THC content
Prescribing in psychiatric contexts requires particular care.
Treatment is individualised and typically begins with lower-risk approaches, such as CBD-dominant or balanced products, with gradual titration and close monitoring. The aim is to manage symptoms while minimising psychoactive effects and associated risks.
Higher THC products are not first-line in psychiatric care. Where they are used, this should be based on clear clinical rationale, within a structured specialist framework, and with appropriate oversight. The MCCS Good Practice Guidance advises that prescribing products with THC levels above 25% should involve peer review through a multidisciplinary team.
In some cases, higher THC products may be appropriate. However, presenting their use as routine in mental health care does not reflect standard clinical practice.
On prescribing numbers and growth
Reporting focused on the number of clinicians responsible for a proportion of prescriptions. It is not appropriate for us too draw conclusions about individual clinicians based on anonymised, aggregate data without clinical context.
Prescribing data reported as “items” does not equate to patient numbers, consultation volume, or complexity of care. For example:
- A single patient may receive multiple items as part of an individualised treatment plan, such as different formulations for day and night use or for breakthrough symptoms
- On average, this is around two items per patient, per prescription, though this varies
- Different prescribing approaches (single prescription vs multiple prescriptions per item) can significantly affect how activity is recorded
Care in this area is often delivered through structured models, with specialist assessment followed by ongoing prescribing and monitoring, frequently supported by wider clinical teams through shared care. These factors are not captured in headline figures. Aggregate prescribing data alone is not a reliable indicator of care quality or clinical practice.
We recognise the significant growth in prescribing and see this as reflecting sustained patient demand, particularly from people with chronic, treatment-resistant conditions such as pain, anxiety and children with resistant epilepsy who have not found adequate relief from conventional therapies.
This demand sits within a wider system context. Many patients are turning to private care because they are unable to access timely support through the NHS, with long waiting lists, including around 1.7 million people waiting for mental health services, contributing to this shift. Clinicians are responding where standard treatments have not worked, rather than as a first-line approach.
Clarifying the role of the Society
[*14:21 The Times updated the story to reflect our role accurately]
The Medical Cannabis Clinicians Society has been described as representing private clinics or acting as a trade body. This is not correct.
We are an independent, clinician-led, not-for-profit organisation. We do not represent clinics or commercial providers. Our members are individual healthcare professionals, including consultants, GPs, pharmacists, nurses, and allied health professionals working across a range of settings.
Our role is to support safe, consistent, and evidence-informed prescribing in an area of medicine that has developed without a formal national clinical framework since legalisation in 2018.
This includes:
- developing Good Practice Guidance
- providing CPD-accredited education and training
- facilitating peer support and case discussion
- engaging with regulators and policymakers to improve standards
Clinical responsibility sits with individual prescribers and the organisations in which they work.
Working collaboratively to improve standards
Medical cannabis prescribing in the UK remains a developing area of practice. It requires ongoing scrutiny, transparency, and a willingness to strengthen standards where needed.
We will continue to work with clinicians, regulators, patient groups, and other stakeholders to support the development of clear, consistent, and robust clinical frameworks.
Our focus is unchanged: to support safe, evidence-informed care, and to ensure that patients who may benefit from these treatments can access them within a well-governed clinical system.