2024-02-22
A good question, upon which much legal deliberation has already been lavished.
An equally good question might be "and who should decide?".
In the UK this question used to be decided locally, but in recent times the government decided that they will decide on fluoridation centrally.
I don't remember the people clamouring for this change, so they made it entirely on the basis that the government knows best, and we locals cannot be trusted to look after ourselves.
This almost certainly means that whereas very few local water supplies are fluoridated to date, this number will be greatly expanded until all supplies are fluoridated. In government, one-size-fits-all rules.
Are we concerned that the government's own investigation into the success of fluoridation in the UK over ten years has been remarkably inconclusive?
Meanwhile in the US of A the issue is being argued in court.
These legal arguments invariably miss a great deal by assuming that the distribution of the fluoride will be handled impeccably and missing the fact that greater harms may in practice be inflicted on a population by a badly controlled application process than by the comparatively minor achievement of a "benefit" so small as to be almost inconsequential after many years.
We should clearly also consider that our water distribution networks were installed in an age when the requirement to ensure an even distribution of added substances was limited to chlorination, which was (rightly or wrongly) applied as a disinfectant and not as a medication.
And whilst our government may be demonstrably unconcerned about such annoying issues as "informed consent" and "freedom of choice", let alone "forced medication", are we the people so insouciant?
