MCPH publishes its editorial standards, privacy terms and corrections process so readers can see who is responsible for the site and how errors are handled.
MCPH standards and accountability
- who MCPH is
- editorial policy
- medical disclaimer
- privacy policy
- terms of use
- contact and correction routes
How MCPH should be read
MCPH is an information site, not a clinic, pharmacy, or prescribing service. The content is designed to help patients and carers ask better questions, understand UK context, and spot the difference between evidence, lived experience, and marketing claims.
Medical cannabis information can affect safety, driving, medication choices, and expectations about care. That is why MCPH keeps disclaimers, editorial policy, privacy information, and contact routes visible instead of hiding them in the footer.
Clinical claim rules
MCPH should be most cautious where a claim could change what a patient does. Safety, legality, prescribing, driving, pregnancy, children, medication interactions, mental health, and stopping or replacing treatment all need stronger sourcing and clearer wording than general background education.
The site should not say or imply that content is clinically reviewed unless that process and reviewer are named. It should not present clinic listings as endorsements unless any commercial relationship, review method, and limitation are made clear. When the evidence is uncertain, the copy should say so plainly.
How corrections work
If something appears outdated, unclear, unsafe, or unsupported, send:
- the page URL
- the sentence, section, or claim that concerns you
- the reason it may be wrong or unsafe
- any source that supports the correction
- whether the issue could affect safety, prescribing, driving, legality, or urgent patient decisions
Safety-critical concerns take priority over style, tone or formatting. The MCPH email address handles corrections and general enquiries; it is not a clinical service, so do not send detailed medical records.
Commercial independence
MCPH can discuss clinics, costs, products, and access routes, but the patient angle comes first. Clinic comparison content should explain the limits of comparison, avoid "best clinic" claims without a transparent method, and separate practical information from endorsement.
When a page discusses a service, product, card, app, or clinic, readers should be able to tell whether the page is education, governance, comparison, or promotion. If that line is not clear, the page needs review.
What to do with concerns
- use the medical disclaimer when a page could be mistaken for personal medical advice
- use the editorial policy to understand how content should be reviewed and corrected
- use the contact page when something looks outdated, unclear, unsafe, or unsupported
- use the privacy and terms pages when you need to understand site data and legal boundaries
Review pattern
Governance pages should make it easy to see what changed and why. The preferred pattern is:
- last reviewed date
- what changed
- whether the change was editorial, legal, safety, privacy, or correction-led
- where a reader can challenge or query the page
This is especially important for access, prescribing and costs, safety, legal and driving, and clinics and care pathways, where old information can mislead patients quickly.
Last reviewed: 18 June 2026.
Governance documents
Visible responsibility
Medical content is easier to assess when responsibility, corrections and legal information are visible.
Corrections and contact
Come back here whenever a page raises a clinical, legal, privacy, or editorial question. For personal care decisions, speak to an appropriate clinician rather than relying on MCPH alone.