A conspiracy to Enforce Fluorosilicates

[7redorbs]

"The right to fluoride free water is not a basic civil right. ... It is not a right which affects the ability of individuals to make autonomous choices ...

In considering the ethics of fluoridation ... we should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage and costs of failure to fluoridate on the community at large."

- Professor John Harris, Centre for Social Ethics and Policy,
University of Manchester. 1998.

Anyone smart enough to know what the above means should be running to the hills!

"Experience has shown that it is not possible to achieve effective fluoride-based caries prevention without the development of some degree of dental fluorosis, a defect of enamel caused by excess fluoride disrupting the developing enamel prior to tooth eruption. This means that whatever methods are chosen to maintain the low level of fluoride in the mouth, the results will be accompanied by some degree of dental fluorosis. The public health administrator seeks to maximise caries reduction while minimizing fluorosis, though in many communities the relative priority accorded to these outcomes will vary."

- World Health Organisation Expert Committee on
Oral Health Status and Fluoride Use 1994

Directly from the British Fluoridation Society bfsweb.org. I'm in a state of shock

[PolarKnight]

but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage and costs of failure to fluoridate on the community at large."

What risks, damage and costs? Thats like a man with a gun accusing his neighbour of being aggresive for putting on body armour. If it were a health issue, then it seems to me that the authorities would recommend people installing their own delivery system in their own homes, but it isn't. They want EVERYONE to get their daily dose of sodium flouride. Good find Red

[outlander]

I have zero cavities and perfect teeth (37yrs old). My wife tells me I have zero bad breath regardless of time of day. I only drink distilled water and the last 2yrs RO water (from a GE Merlin unit, gets my water to 3ppm vs. tap that is 250+ppm of toxic sludge). I do have regular toothpaste but rinse well. I believe it is a decent diet that prevents cavities, mainly no soft drinks. I would almost wager that if people simply drank pure water as their only liquid intake the reduction in cavities would be immense. But like everywhere else those who take care of their health must suffer at the hands of those who do not. I'm majorly anti-flouride. Also, my 7yr old daughter has never drank anything but purified water and is very healthy with zero cavities. That is all the proof I need. Just more government intervention that ultimately punishes the wrong people. I'd rather see parent's get fined $250 per cavity then fluoride get shoved down my throat thanks to their negligence (not that fluoride even does anything!) . Hell just give us all ammonia in the tap water, then we can wash the beef in it too :P

[7redorbs]

What risks, damage and costs? Thats like a man with a gun accusing his neighbour of being aggresive for putting on body armour. If it were a health issue, then it seems to me that the authorities would recommend people installing their own delivery system in their own homes, but it isn't. They want EVERYONE to get their daily dose of sodium flouride. Good find Red

I would want to take it further. It is a man with a gun threatening society with it. Telling them, to take OFF the body Armour, and to take the bullet, whether society gets caries or not somehow is more important than the right to a choice. ;)

'Autonomous Choice' - that's not ambiguous at all

The core idea of personal autonomy is to have personal rule of the self while remaining free from controlling interference by others. The autonomous person acts in accordance with a freely self-chosen and informed plan. A person of diminished autonomy, by contrast, is in at least some respects controlled by others or is incapable of deliberating or acting on the basis of his or her own plans. For example, institutionalized persons, such as prisoners or the mentally retarded, may have diminished autonomy.

In public health, the concept of autonomous decision making is related to informed consent. Virtually all medical and research codes of ethics now hold that physicians and researchers must obtain the informed consent of patients and research subjects before undertaking procedures. These consent measures have been designed to enable autonomous choice by patients and subjects, but they serve other purposes as well, including the protection of patients and subjects against harm and the encouragement of medical professionals to act responsibly in their interaction with patients and subjects.

There is growing international appreciation of the importance of ethical review of research involving human subjects. Ethical review committees carry the primary responsibility for ensuring that research is scientifically sound, and that informed consent is obtained from research subjects in ways that respect their autonomy and ensure an appropriate balance of risks and benefits.

While informed consent can be obtained in more advanced societies in ways that can be assessed by ethical review committees in terms of subjects being well informed and the consent being understood and responded to by the subject without coercion or intimidation, the situation may be different in developing countries. The informed consent process could be very different in a cultural situation in which the subject is illiterate and the process of seeking consent involves obtaining overall permission from community leadership in addition to individual consent from research subjects. In such situations the challenge is to respect local culture and its processes, while at the same time respecting the autonomous rights of each research subject.

Visa vi - because NOT using fluoride has risks and is expensive, it must therefore justify a legal basis for a persons to have no statutory right, of informed autonomous choice in being exposed to it; implying that the current system is wrong, doesn't apply to fluoridation - and the obligation is not informing the patient or gaining their permission at all, but that of saving money and reducing 'risk' to patients in society drinking the water.

e.g. enforce.

Shocking for me, anyway.

Perhaps someone who disagrees could tell me how such reasoning could differ from an institutional facility. This organization is arguing that citizens have no right to the inform or an opinion or say on the deployment, because it's for their safety. I guess it's a bit like patriot II apart from it's with the only proper source of water modern man has or can afford round these parts.

I'd call that quite an institutional reform, wouldn't you?


I think the proof in the pudding is simple cost to who? Who's paying for it?

peace,
A