LETTER 1 - Request for Policy Clarification

Subject: Request for clarification on DVA medicinal cannabis policy

Dear [MP’s Name],

I am writing as a constituent seeking clarity on the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) policy regarding access to medicinal cannabis for veterans with treatment-resistant PTSD and traumatic brain injury.

DVA policy states that medicinal cannabis applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis after all conventional treatments have failed. However, approvals for mental health indications appear to have ceased, despite increasing recognition of treatment resistance and evidence of harm associated with long-term psychiatric polypharmacy.

DVA has stated it relies on expert advice and “gold-standard” double-blind placebo trials to assess safety and effectiveness. As the statutory body responsible for veterans’ healthcare, DVA also has an obligation to provide care that is safe, effective, and evidence-informed — particularly where approved treatments have failed or are associated with harm.

While veterans may technically self-fund medicinal cannabis, many rely on DVA funding for prescribed care, including off-label psychiatric medications. In practice, self-funding restricts access based on financial capacity rather than clinical need.

I would appreciate it if you could request DVA to respond to the following questions on my behalf:

1. Policy consistency and expert advice
How does DVA reconcile its stated case-by-case approval policy with the apparent blanket refusal of medicinal cannabis for mental health conditions after conventional treatments have failed, and how does DVA ensure that expert advice includes appropriate expertise in medicinal cannabis, the endocannabinoid system, and treatment-resistant populations?

2. Evidence framework and biological relevance
How does DVA justify applying trial standards designed for single-molecule pharmaceutical products to multi-component medicines, and how can evidence be considered complete when the endocannabinoid system — the biological system through which medicinal cannabis acts — is not addressed in policy or advisory material?

3. Risk, harm, and existing access
In light of evidence presented by Phoenix Australia to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide identifying harm and increased suicide risk associated with long-term psychiatric polypharmacy in treatment-resistant veterans, and given that medicinal cannabis is already legally prescribed to civilians for mental health symptoms, why is this existing treatment pathway not actively evaluated or supported for veterans after conventional treatments have failed?

4. Equity and duty of care
How does DVA interpret and apply its obligation to provide safe and effective care when it funds off-label psychiatric medications on a case-by-case basis, yet excludes medicinal cannabis from approval while advising veterans they may self-fund it?

I would appreciate receiving any response provided by DVA.

Thank you for your assistance.

Kind regards,
[Your Full Name]
[Suburb & Postcode]

—————————————————
Letter 2 — Family & Community letter

Subject: Veteran mental health policy and family impactVeteran mental health policy and family impact

Dear [MP’s Name],

I am writing as a constituent and community member concerned about veterans living with treatment-resistant PTSD and traumatic brain injury, and the significant impact this has on their families.

Partners, parents, and children often carry the long-term consequences of these conditions — including unpaid caregiving, financial stress, and secondary mental health impacts — while veterans remain unwell despite intensive treatment. Many families assume that when veterans are under Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) care, treatments provided or funded are intended to be safe, effective, and in the veteran’s best interests.

DVA policy states that medicinal cannabis may be considered on a case-by-case basis after conventional treatments have failed. However, approvals for mental health conditions appear to have ceased, even as evidence presented to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has identified harm and increased suicide risk associated with long-term psychiatric polypharmacy in treatment-resistant veterans.

While veterans may technically self-fund medicinal cannabis, this places the cost burden on families already under strain, effectively limiting access based on financial capacity rather than medical need.

As a community member, I am not advocating for any specific treatment. I am seeking transparency, fairness, and evidence-informed policy for veterans and their families.

Could you please seek clarification from DVA on the following:

1. How its stated case-by-case policy for medicinal cannabis is being applied in practice for mental health conditions

2. Why policy advice does not acknowledge the endocannabinoid system, the biological system through which medicinal cannabis acts

3. How findings from the Royal Commission, including evidence provided by Phoenix Australia regarding harm from long-term psychiatric polypharmacy, are reflected in current policy

4. How DVA ensures its policies meet its responsibility to provide safe and effective care when veterans remain unwell under existing treatment models

5. Why veterans are told they may self-fund medicinal cannabis while DVA continues to subsidise other off-label psychiatric treatments

I would appreciate receiving any response provided by DVA.

Thank you for raising these concerns on behalf of families in our community.

Kind regards,
[Your Full Name]
[Suburb & Postcode]