How HPCSA Rule 27 shapes what doctors can and cannot tell you about cannabis

HPCSA Rule 27 is the ethical rule governing how registered medical practitioners may advertise and present themselves publicly. The rule prohibits, among other things:

**Therapeutic claims** — statements that a treatment cures, treats, or guarantees outcomes for a specific condition. A patient-facing site cannot say "cannabis treats chronic pain" — it can say "cannabinoids may be considered as adjunctive therapy in refractory chronic pain after first-line options have been trialled".

**Before-after comparative testimonials** — patient testimonials presenting outcome contrasts (before treatment vs after treatment) for marketing purposes are prohibited. This applies to written, photographic, and video testimonials.

**Direct-to-public advertising of prescription medicines** — under Medicines Act §18C, prescription medicines may not be advertised directly to the public. Only registered medical practitioners may receive product-specific marketing. This is why Docto24 educational content references cannabinoid classes and mechanisms but does not name specific brands.

**Comparative claims against other practitioners** — claims of superiority over named competitors are not permitted in the patient-facing context.

The rationale is straightforward: prescription medicine decisions should be driven by clinical assessment, not marketing. Patients exposed to product-specific cannabis advertising would form expectations about what they should be prescribed independent of clinical fit, putting pressure on doctor-patient interactions and on prescribing decisions. The rules protect the integrity of the consultation.

The before-after testimonial restriction protects against the well-documented phenomenon that visible patient outcomes shape new-patient expectations in unrealistic ways. Two patients with similar conditions can have very different cannabinoid responses; presenting one patient's positive outcome as representative misleads the next.

**Educational, not promotional** — content frames cannabinoid mechanisms, evidence quality, indications, and the regulatory pathway. It does not frame Docto24 as the answer or specific products as the answer.

**Cannabinoid classes, not brand names** — we discuss CBD, balanced THC:CBD oils, oromucosal sprays as classes. Specific product names appear only in patient-facing dispensing materials post-prescription, where they are operationally necessary.

**Honest evidence framing** — where the evidence base is thin (ADHD, ME/CFS), we say so. Where indications are well-evidenced (treatment-resistant epilepsy, MS spasticity), we say that too. Doing the opposite would be a disservice to patients trying to make informed decisions.

You will not see "Sarah, 42, was suffering from chronic pain — Docto24 changed her life" on this site. You will not see brand-specific product photography. You will not see comparative claims against other telemedicine providers. If a competitor or future imitator shows you those things, that is a regulatory red flag — not a feature.

The trade-off is that some of the persuasive content techniques common in consumer wellness marketing are unavailable to medical practices in South Africa. We think that constraint is correct.