Anesthesiologist and podiatrist Steven W. Breen, an avid bud enthusiast, had been diagnosed with glioblastoma, a cancer of the blood-brain barrier, at age 40.
The surgery was not planned, but it was a fitting choice, he said.
“It was something that I could not do at the time, and I was still very young,” he said of the operation.
“My son was there, so I could see it, and then I thought, This is great.
I’m going to get it done.”
The surgery on June 30, 2013, brought a miraculous recovery for Mr. Bream, who underwent an operation that took five weeks and cost about $250,000, according to his lawyer, Stephen R. LeRoy.
Mr. LeRage said his client, who had a wife and five young children, had undergone a series of tests and treatment to reduce the risk of recurrence.
He said that at the end of the procedure, Mr. Waddell, a former employee of his, was given the green light to drive the bud out of his car, and he was on the road with it when it exploded, sending shards of glass flying everywhere.
He suffered a concussion and lost consciousness for two days.
His daughter woke him up and he said he was in a coma for two weeks.
The accident killed him and his wife.
“I just wish that the doctors had known how close they were to this and could have taken it faster,” Mr. Rage said.
The case has prompted the United States Food and Drug Administration to issue a rule that would require doctors to use “advanced” technology to make sure that a patient is not exposed to the deadly cancer before he or she undergoes surgery.
But the issue of whether a patient could be exposed to a fatal tumor has long been debated.
Mr, Bream said he had hoped that with his case, the FDA would allow doctors to conduct further tests, but he had not heard back from the agency.
“The FDA has not yet responded to our request,” Mr Bream’s lawyer said in a statement.
“This is unfortunate.
We are working to get them to reconsider.”
Mr. McAfee, the lawyer, said that the bud, like most of the others, would not have been included in the proposed rule, but that it had been included for medical reasons.
Mr McAfee said the bud’s “health and safety” would be protected under the rule, and the company would be required to notify the FDA if it was deemed unsafe.
The company, which has more than 400,000 members, said it would not take any action until the FDA issued a decision.
“We feel like we are being treated with respect,” Mr McAdoo said.
Mr Breen said he planned to pursue the matter in court and hoped the company and his fellow bud enthusiasts would continue to fight for the legalization of bud.
“If we can make a difference, it could have been a lot better for me,” Mr Waddells said.
But Mr. M. Brawley, a fellow bud enthusiast who helped organize the rally, said he understood the urgency of the matter and said he would be disappointed if the company had not been able to meet its burden.
“There are a lot of people out there who don’t want to have to go through this,” he told The Associated Press.
“They’re scared and they don’t understand why.”
The bud debate is not new, said David A. Johnson, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Cannabis Research.
Mr Johnson said the issue had long been discussed and debated in Washington state and other states.
“Until there’s a law, we’re just going to have people fighting,” he added.
“But it’s going to be an uphill battle, as people will have to pay attention.”