To my knowledge water fluoridation represents the only form of prophylactic medication that is delivered on a ‘dose-by-thirst-regardless-of-your-age-gender-weight-ethnicity-need-or-current-consumption-from-other-sources’ basis.
In Ireland – the only country in the world where it is mandated by law – residents have higher than average rates of osteoporosis, some cancers, hypothyroidism (which in turn is linked with depression) and neurological disease – all of which have been linked with, or shown to be either contributed to or exacerbated by, fluoride.
Yet despite those increased disease rates and risks thereof, and despite the fact that recent WHO stats show we have the worst dental health in the (98% non-fluoridated) EU, the Irish Government keeps adding it to our water supply.
As they are not listening to the logic… and are repeatedly ignoring the science (presented to them in the early 2000’s and again many times in recent years)… and clearly aren’t concerned about the ethical issues around haphazardly medicating people they’ve never medically examined with a substance that is not only unapproved as either a food additive or a medicine but is also deemed hazardous by the EU… they are going to have to be brought to court.
On what grounds?
I’m no lawyer. But I can think of plenty.
- Human rights violations. Everyone has the right to bodily integrity and medicating someone against their will contravenes that right. Lots of people have asked the Government and/or State to stop medicating them… but they continue to do so. That means there are lots of people whose rights have been abused.
- Negligence. Apparently, written into early 1960’s Act which mandated fluoridation, is the condition that there would be investigation and monitoring of the health of the Irish population to see if fluoride was adversely affecting it. To date there have been no reports of toxicological studies or even epidemiological studies exploring that issue. Surely if one does something repeatedly to a person’s body every day for their entire lives and never stops to investigate that (a) the action is producing the intended result and (b) is not producing any unintended result, the actor is being negligent in their duty of care?
- Willful negligence. If one accepts this definition of it: “Intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. Willful negligence usually involves a conscious indifference to the consequences.” If our national dental health records indicate we have worse dental health than non-fluoridating nations, it means fluoridation is not working. So to continue doing it is unreasonable… and they DO know of the risks because they have been informed many times. Not least by several scientists and researchers in the early 2000’s and again in the last 2-3 years.
- Criminal negligence. If one agrees that it means “recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)“. When the Material Safety Data Sheet that arrives with your supply of Hexafluosilicic Acid or other fluoridating agent, specifically says something like ‘human corrosive – damages teeth and bones and should be considered so dangerous that it should on no account be released into the environment’*… then forcing someone to drink it surely means you acted in an unreasonably incautious manner and put them at risk of at least some form of injury. If not death. (Interestingly, the Wikipedia criminal negligence describes it as a ‘misfeasance or ‘nonfeasance’ (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation.” That sounds very like what our Government and Dept of Health and Children are doing as they go about fluoridating our water.
Lawyers please sharpen your quills. We need this insane practice ended. Please get in touch with The Girl Against Fluoride – she needs help preparing and taking her legal case.
Everyone else, please ask lawyers you know to investigate this topic – and do what you can to support her brave intentions.
* With my own eyes I read words to that effect on an MSDS obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by an end-fluoridation campaigner in the late 1990’s.