The Government plans to "legally oblige" ostensibly-private
water companies to fluoridate. Several water companies responded
to customers' wishes and refused to fluoridate, adding that Government
indemnities to them are "insufficient"!
One could be generous and say that the Government genuinely believes
that fluoridation is beneficial and safe. But this raises questions,
which they ignore.
Why have they never tested for existing fluoride levels in
people, as they were expressly warned to do in the 1950s by a
Ministry of Health Commission, and by the World Health Organisation
in 1994? Why does the Government ignore published research showing
fluoride to be harmful, even in tiny amounts? Why not target those
groups who are most "at risk" with "education,
education, education"?
On the proposed switch from health authority (HA) to local
government decisions, this might appear more democratic, since
HAs are not elected. But it raises more questions.
Why doesn't the Government accept the results of public
consultations already held, when the majority of local councils
rejected water fluoridation? What has suddenly changed? Could
it be Mr Blair's 'restructuring' of local government, under
which Councils will be expected to follow their Party's policy
rather than protect the Rights of local people? Both major Parties
have policies to fluoridate, never mentioned in their manifestoes,
nor ratified at any of their conferences. Transferring the decision-making
on water fluoridation to local councils could be a 'fast track'
to implementing it.
On the matter of "legally obliging" water companies
to fluoridate, the decision of Lord Jauncey (1983) that fluoridation
is medicinal and therefore unlawful, led the Tory Government
to legalise it! Statements, notably from health minister Kenneth
Clarke in 1985, assured MPs that the new Water Fluoridation
Act would not mark the start of any campaign to force fluoridation.
Following the Judicial Review in the High Court, (1998), Justice
Collins opined that Northumbrian Water plc "is perfectly
entitled to refuse to fluoridate."
Clearly, neither Lord Jauncey's decision that fluoridation
is unlawful, NOR Justice Collins' ruling that companies can
refuse, is acceptable to Government. Governments past and present
will not allow the Law to stand in their way!
The National Pure Water Association called for a full, independent
public inquiry into all this, but Government has instead opted
for an "independent" review (funded by the DoH!) of
the science alone. This ignores the important and weighty matters
of the legal, ethical and political implications. Doesn't
the Government want these to be addressed? Government says
it doesn't want to force fluoridation and suggestions
have been made that "local referendums" should
be held. Any such referendum would threaten your Individual
Right to withhold your consent to medication, or "preventive
treatment". Anyone who thinks that such a decision
can be taken by a referendum has not considered the consequences.
They may wish to be seen as "democratic and fair –
a nice guy, " but they are taking away people's
Rights. Fluoridation is NOT a matter for referenda because
Individual Rights are not transferable.
EXAMPLE: If 51% of the people vote FOR fluoridation, the
other half of the population will be FORCED to have it. The
Rights of 49% of the people will have been stolen!
"Over his own mind and body the individual is sovereign."
(John Stuart Mill). This is a First Principle . A doctor
who forces a patient to take medicine will go to jail. If
such an action is wrong for the doctor it is also wrong for the
Government. Elected representatives (MPs and Councillors)
have a DUTY to protect the Rights of their constituents. In proposing
fluoridation Government is trying to steal every person's
Right to withhold his or her consent, without them realising
that there has been a burglary! If it succeeds, a dangerous precedent
will be set.
If an individual's sovereignty over his own mind and body
can be stolen once, it can be stolen again at some other time
on some other issue which the Government wants to implement.
The RIGHTS of future generations will thus be incrementally
eroded.
The question being presented to individuals and Councils
is: "Do you think that fluoride should be added to
the drinking water if it can reduce tooth decay in children?"
THE REAL ISSUE IS: "Does Government have the RIGHT
to mass medicate or treat individuals without their consent?"
WE SAY THE ANSWER IS, "NO.
IT DOES NOT! "
We urge MPs and Councillors to uphold the rights of their
Constituents. VOTE "NO" to fluoridation.
