Trust and governance

This page explains how MCPH handles editorial standards, privacy, corrections, and legal basics. It is here because medical cannabis content can easily blur into promotion, personal advice, or unsupported certainty if the rules are not visible.

What this page covers

• 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If something appears outdated, unclear, unsafe, or unsupported, send: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 should be prioritised over style, tone, or formatting. MCPH cannot give personal medical advice by email, and patients should not send detailed medical records unless specifically asked through an appropriate clinical route.

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.

Start here

• About
• Editorial policy
• Medical disclaimer
• Privacy policy
• Terms of use
• Contact

Why it matters

Medical content is easier to trust when the rules are visible. This page shows who is responsible for the copy, how corrections work, and where to find the legal basics.

Next step

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.