Medication without consent: The legal implicationsIs it ethical . . .? The British Dental Association, British Medical Association, Area Health Authorities and others have continued for years to lobby parliament to force a change in the law to compel water authorities to fluoridate drinking water throughout Britain if the Health Authorities request it. But from the evidence presented here it is clear that experts disagree as to the benefits and dangers associated with fluoridation. The first obvious question to be answered, therefore, is: should the whole population be put at risk for the possible benefit of a minority? We are already overfluoridated When drinking water was first fluoridated in the 1940s, that was the only source of fluoride in the food supply. Today all that has changed: it is difficult to find a toothpaste which does not contain fluoride; fluoride may also be found in canned drinks, fruit juices, tea, meat, vegetables -- in fact all foods which have been grown or manufactured using fluoridated water. So is it really necessary to add more to tap water? And as it seems we are not sure what is a safe limit for fluoride, is it even safe to add more to tap water? The evidence suggests strongly that it is not. Fluoridation of tap water forces us all to take the risk of this dubious and, for most, unnecessary medication whether we want to or not as domestic water filters do not filter fluoride out and bottled water is both suspect and expensive. Even if there were conclusive evidence that fluoridation is of benefit to one section of the population, it cannot be right to prescribe it for all if it has been shown to cause harm to others. And whether it is dangerous or not, and whether it is good for children's teeth or not are really irrelevant. There is no ethical reason why everyone, like it or not, should be subjected to any form of mass medication. . . . is it legal? It may not even be legal : in English law, medical treatment without consent is only permitted by court order for convicted felons, for the mentally ill, or for minors with the consent of their guardians. Surely it cannot be ethical for any health professional to prescribe medication for persons he has not met, whose past medical histories are not known, whose current medical needs are not known, where the dose that each individual will take in is not known, when it is not known whether the medication will react with other medications being taken, or even whether those people need the medication at all. Fluoridation is an affront to human dignity which is explicitly recognised as a major objective in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The foundation of the legal rights and liberties of the individual is the principle of that individual's responsibility for his conduct and his own interests, chief among which is his health. Fluoridation encroaches on a person's sovereignty over his body and the selfsame principle that seeks to justify fluoridation would also justify adding tranquillisers, vitamins, antibiotics, contraceptives, laxatives or anything else to the water supply: it could justify putting nicotine in the water supply to help smokers give up, for example. This is the principle of totalitarianism. Fluoridation is not only against the spirit of the laws of England, it is contrary to the letter of the law. Even if fluoridation eventually proves to be safe, which seems highly unlikely, the psychological damage that will be done to those who fear the side effects of fluoride and cannot avoid it could cause much more ill health than toothache ever will. Adding insult to injury of those who do not want fluoride will be the knowledge that they will have to pay for this intrusion on their rights while being harmed by it. Bad science The protection of teeth by fluoridation is merely attempting to mitigate the symptoms of disease without first trying to cure the disease. This is not good medicine. If dentists are really concerned about dental caries, why are they not openly addressing the cause: children's eating of sweets, fizzy drinks and other refined carbohydrates (starches and sugars)? Reference McCormick Dr P, (Barrister at Law). The Legal, Ethical and Political Implications of Fluoridation . National Pure Water Association, 1997
NATIONAL PURE WATER ASSOCIATION'S Admin Office: 12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone, Wakefield, WF4 3ET, UK Phone: 01924 25 44 33 |
||||
Registered office: Croft End,
Lowick Bridge, Cumbria LA12 8EE
A not for profit Company
This document may be freely copied