norml11 - Page 31

 , it is not malpractice to be among
 given city who follow:one Of the
 accepted school s. _ °
 505 F.2d at 492 .(Emphasis added)E. Seep also_ Leech v. Bra.lliar, 275 FoSupp.
 897 (0.Ariz., 1967).
 How do we ascer{ain _hethee _here exists a school of thought supported by
 responsible medical authority, and thus "accepted'? We listen to the
 _hysicians.
 The court and .jury must have a standard measure
 which they are to use in measuring the acts of a
 doctor to determine whether he exercised a reasonable
 degree of care and ski_1; they are _ot permitted to
 set up and use any arbitrary or artificia_ standard
 of measurement that the jury may w#sh to applyo The
 proper standard of measurement is to be established
 by testimony of physicians, for it _s a medical
 question.
 _es v. Brown, 133 S.E. 2d° 102(Ga.o _963) at 105.
 As noted above, there is no question but that this record shows a great
 my physicians, and others, to have _accepted" marijuana as having a medical
 .e in the treatment of cancer patients' emesis. True, all physicians have not
 ccepted" it. But to require universal, _00% acceptance would be unreasonable.
 ceptance by "a respectat)_e minority" of physiciaF_s is a_l that can reasonably
 required. The record here establishes conclusively that at least "a respec-
 _le minority" of physicians has "accepted _ marijuana as having a "medical use
 treatment in the United States. _ That others may not makes no difference.
 The administrative _aw judge recommended this same approach for determining
 _ther a drug has an "accepted medicai use in treatment" in The Matter Of MDMA
 edu1_, Docket No. 84_48.. The Adminstrator, in his first final rule in that
 ceeding, issued on October 8, 19868 , declined to adopt this approach. He
 51 Fed° Reg. 36552 (_986). !
 - 29 -