Doctor’s license revoked for treating 4 year old patient with cannabis cookies


Source –

holistic Hollywood doctor, known for doling out pot prescriptions to treat patients, lost his medical license after suggesting a 4-year-old boy take pot-laced cannabis cookies to offset his behavioral problems.

The Medical Board of California on November 6, 2018, determined that Dr. William Eidelman’s diagnosis of the toddler’s emotional issues — which involved a “probable combination” of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity (ADHD) and Bipolar Disorder — was in the wrong. And this was based, not solely for the boy’s allotment of edibles to help him with his emotional issues, but for “other reasons to the methods he followed in arriving at the recommendation,” according to the decision reviewed by Newsweek.

The matter was first reported by The Los Angeles Times, which stipulated that the Eidelman disputes his license was revoked earlier this month. Newsweek’s attempts to reach the doctor or his attorney were not immediately returned by the time of publication.

In the document, the father is referred to by the initials “L.T.” and his son (who was 4 and about turn 5 at the time) is “T.T.”

Eidelman had a previous medical history with the boy’s dad, L.T., having recommended marijuana “for medical purposes” in the past, the decision states. The father came to Eidelman in attempt to help the boy deal with “episodes of uncontrollable behavior and temper tantrums.”

The dad and his son’s older brother apparently suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and bipolar and after trying various pills, “they found cannabis more effective.”

When Eidelman consulted T.T. for 20 to 30 minutes back in 2012, he noted the boy mostly engaged with his dad and he described him as appearing “agitated from the stress of the day in school, coming to the doctor… and having trouble sitting still,” the document notes.

Eidelman later would contend T.T. was expelled from school and told by his teacher “he couldn’t come back unless he was on some drug” that would manage his behavior,” the decision notes.

Without considering other methods and experts such as retrieving the boy’s medical records or referring him to a pediatrician, psychiatrist, the decision suggests Eidelman went by the short interview the L.T. and T.T. and regimented a plan in a signed letter to “try cannabis in small amounts in cookies.”

The doctor allegedly left the dosage to be at the discretion of his father (L.T.), according to the decision.

The dad served his son a morning cookie with “small amounts of the cannabis,” the decision details.

But when L.T. attempted to increase the daily dosage by adding it to his son’s lunch, the school nurse immediately reported the matter to the school administration and, the decision goes on, both law enforcement (The San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office) and child protective services intervened.

When Eidelman met with the boy the following year on Sept. 13, 2013, he was informed of the actions taken over by various agencies over this marijuana recommendation.

Still, Eidelman wanted to stay the course.

In his notes, documented by the decision, Eidelman suggested the boy was “doing relatively well,” he was “alert, oriented, calm, smiling” and “accepts” the situation of the authorities opening a probe into his pot cookie prescription. He also maintained the diagnoses “ADD/BiPolar,” the decision suggests.

Two years later, Eidelman again mentioned the seemingly marked improvement of the boy, even stating that he was “able to participate in conversation normally,” according to the decision.

When pressed by a panel of doctors on how he was able to diagnose the boy with his emotional maladies — especially Bipolar Disorder, Eidelman allegedly claimed he went by the family history and was “treating the symptoms.”

However, Eidelman apparently “could not describe the diagnostic criteria” for it, the decision reads.

In fact, Eidelman defended his move to supply marijuana to the toddlers because he was “given small amounts of medical marijuana” and therefore, he told the panel, the danger was minimal.

In his online bio, Eidelman boasts 30 years of natural healing and states his practice integrates herbs, nutrition bioelectromagnetism and meditation.

“I’ve traveled all over the world, and have seen and heard almost everything…I believe that these approaches to healing and to prevention and to awakening can be a boon to each of us, and to the country as a whole.”

On one blog entry last Fall, Eidelman seems to not put much stock in psychiatry or psychology, claiming they have “long been considered unscientific because of the lack of objective parameters for evaluating the brain and the mind.”

The doctor also fell into trouble at least two other times, records show.

In 2004, a decision was recorded coming down on Eidelman’s violations for “furnishing dangerous drugs without a good faith examination.”

And in 2009, a decision by the state board determined Eidelman failed to keep “adequate records” and appearing to supply pot to one patient (who appeared to be an undercover officer) because he was sad without it. “…[Edelman] asked if [patient] would get depressed if he did not have marijuana, and [patient” answered affirmatively,” the decision adds.

The answer was apparently enough for Eidelman to provide the patient with a “recommendation letter for marijuana.”

The decision states the doctor, without being able to cite an authority for his claim, maintained that “there’s pretty much no risk,” in prescribing the pot cookies as he did.

It appears that, according to the decision, T.T. was actually suffering not from ADHD or Bipolar disorders, but from Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD), based on his admittance to a hospital on New Year’s Eve in 2016.

The board stated that Eidelman was duty-bound to explore a second or third opinion from a specialist in order to assess if he was stricken with ADHD or Bipolar disorders.

This, the decision points out, proved to be Eidelman’s undoing.

“[Eidelman] did not seek the opinion of a specialist to reach the correct diagnosis and did not recommend such action to the father,” the decision states.

So when the doctor essentially decided to make diagnoses himself the board submits in the decision that they were “erroneous” and made “through violation of the stars of care.”