Home - Ethics of Fluoridation
What is in the Water? Should I be concerned?
Fluoridation of drinking water: an Ethical, personal and Social dilemma?
Or
A simple matter of turning off fluoridation taps applying other reasonable, respectful options.
Are forced fluoridation activities, undertaken without having a scientific, social, ethical, democratic and individually personal agreement regarding the perceived effectiveness of consuming hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride and other fluoride bearing chemicals and medications used to treat people, animals and our environment without informed consent an ethical activity?
Is each responsible person, adult, parent, care giver, and child unable to make an informed and individual decision on their right to drink medicated, poisoned water \ VS their right to drinking fresh, pure, clean and safe water....or are they considered incapable of learning and understanding the potential, confirmed and disputed harmful effects from fluoridation preventing them from making an informed decision and choice?
Who has the right to remove, and take away, personal individual and social rights including the responsibilities and consequences from making informed choices?
The discussion is one of responsibilities, ethics, morals and values; who's ethics, who's morals and who's values. Who's responsibilities regarding who's choices are dictating individuals lives other than their own choices including who is accountable and responsible when those choices are removed?
"We are our brothers keeper"
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally — either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."
Fluoridation is not a social decision, it is a personal right to refuse or accept, individually.
Forced fluoridation is not the Law, unless you live in Prince George!
Or
A simple matter of turning off fluoridation taps applying other reasonable, respectful options.
Are forced fluoridation activities, undertaken without having a scientific, social, ethical, democratic and individually personal agreement regarding the perceived effectiveness of consuming hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride and other fluoride bearing chemicals and medications used to treat people, animals and our environment without informed consent an ethical activity?
Is each responsible person, adult, parent, care giver, and child unable to make an informed and individual decision on their right to drink medicated, poisoned water \ VS their right to drinking fresh, pure, clean and safe water....or are they considered incapable of learning and understanding the potential, confirmed and disputed harmful effects from fluoridation preventing them from making an informed decision and choice?
Who has the right to remove, and take away, personal individual and social rights including the responsibilities and consequences from making informed choices?
The discussion is one of responsibilities, ethics, morals and values; who's ethics, who's morals and who's values. Who's responsibilities regarding who's choices are dictating individuals lives other than their own choices including who is accountable and responsible when those choices are removed?
"We are our brothers keeper"
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally — either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."
Fluoridation is not a social decision, it is a personal right to refuse or accept, individually.
Forced fluoridation is not the Law, unless you live in Prince George!
The Ethics of Water Fluoridation (2000).
Mary McNally, M.Sc., DDS, Jocelyn Downie, MA, Mlitt., LLM, SJD.
In a recent CDA member information bulletin entitled “Fluoride and Dentistry,” the following question was posed: “If fluoride is available from many sources, and the prevalence of dental fluorosis among children is increasing, why does CDA continue to support water fluoridation?”
Other articles from the Canadian Dental Association.
The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation (2001).
Howard Cohen, BA, MA, PhD, David Locker, BDS, PhD.
“In the absence of comprehensive, high-quality evidence with respect to the benefits and risks of water fluoridation, the moral status of advocacy for this practice is, at best, indeterminate, and could perhaps be considered immoral.”
Mary McNally, M.Sc., DDS, Jocelyn Downie, MA, Mlitt., LLM, SJD.
In a recent CDA member information bulletin entitled “Fluoride and Dentistry,” the following question was posed: “If fluoride is available from many sources, and the prevalence of dental fluorosis among children is increasing, why does CDA continue to support water fluoridation?”
Other articles from the Canadian Dental Association.
The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation (2001).
Howard Cohen, BA, MA, PhD, David Locker, BDS, PhD.
“In the absence of comprehensive, high-quality evidence with respect to the benefits and risks of water fluoridation, the moral status of advocacy for this practice is, at best, indeterminate, and could perhaps be considered immoral.”
THE ETHICS OF WATER FLUORIDATION (1995).
"The ethics of water fluoridation are scrutinized by Mark Diesendorf in this issue of Fluoride.
Diesendorf notes that the balancing of the benefits and risks is inseparably linked to the assessment of what the benefits and risks are seen to be. If the view is taken that the risks are questionable and the benefits substantial it can be asked: is it right to impose questionable risks on a tiny minority in order to confer substantial benefits on the majority? When a question of this nature is asked it is relatively easy to find in favour of fluoridation. However, Diesendorf finds that the scientific evidence does not support the opinion that the risks are only questionable and the benefits are substantial. Each of these areas has been the subject of extensive debate."
