A conflict of interests: Human rights, civil liberties and water fluoridation.

UK Councils Against Fluoridation

This new analysis summarises some of the central Human Rights issues associated with mass medication

Douglas Cross, BSc,CBiol,EurProBiol,FSB
March 2011

http://www.ukcaf.org/files/human_rights_civil_liberties_and_water_fluoridati.pdf

Introduction – The ethical controversy over water fluoridation.

The addition of fluorosilicic acid, a highly toxic corrosive poison, as a source of ‘fluoride’ in drinking water is a
highly contentious public health intervention. Around 10% of the English and 70% of the Republic of Ireland’s
population are supplied with virtually unavoidable public drinking water supplies that are fluoridated, in the hope -
almost certainly unwarranted – that their children will have fewer bad teeth. This is unquestionably a clinical
intervention, as it constitutes the administration of a substance to members of the public with the express intent
to affect their personal health.
Since it is also non-consensual – in Southampton last year 73% of respondents in a poll rejected a proposal
to fluoridate the City’s water supply – it appears to be in violation of the human rights of the public. Yet in a
number of States, including Britain and Ireland, the policy of water fluoridation forms part of the armoury of public
health interventions that governments rely on to maintain the health of the people. So the use of this intervention
within the code of civil liberties seems to be at odds with its apparent violation of the human rights of members of
the public.
The resulting confrontations between anti-fluoridation groups and a very small band of fluoridation advocates
within the dental and public health professions have been running for decades. However, recent developments,
in which reputable scientific evidence confirms that this practice is neither safe nor effective, are forcing the
debate into the Courts.
Up to half of all children in fluoridated areas develop a condition in which the enamel of the teeth becomes
discoloured and, in more serious cases, badly discoloured and deformed. The ethical issues raised by what the
public recognise as ‘mass medication’ are becoming of concern to legal practitioners.Those States that do
fluoridate their water supplies invariably deny that the practice is medical, and ignore claims that it is in breach of
human rights legislation. This study therefore provides a brief review of the main issues that are relevant to legal
practitioners working under the European framework of legislation.
Misleading the public – public perceptions of human rights and civil liberties.

Much of the claimed ethical support for fluoridation relies on the use of emotional language to persuade the
public and the medical profession of the alleged morality of the practice. Proponents claim that the physiological
need for fluoride, especially among socially deprived and disadvantaged children, is such that objections to
fluoridation by non-consenting members of the public are, by implication, morally unacceptable. Proponents
speak passionately of the distress of infants exposed to traumatic and even life-threatening tooth extractions
under general anaesthetics to remove their ‘diseased body-parts’ (bad teeth), and alleging that many children
are permanently damaged and may even die during such operations.

In fact, tooth extractions on children under general anaesthetics in dental surgeries was banned in the UK in
November 1999 – too many children were dying during treatment, and incidents of children dying during such
operations in hospitals are now extremely rare.This is so even though the UK has a higher referral rate for such
operations than most European countries, where less invasive procedures are preferred.

Objections to water fluoridation are often expressed on the grounds that such non-consensual medication
violates their human rights. The political and institutional conflicts raised by such enforced medication have been
discussed in the past (for example, see Balog (1), Cross and Carton (2) , Nuffield Council on Bioethics (3)), and I
believe that there are persuasive ethical arguments against this practice. However, as in other aspects of the
controversial subject of water fluoridation, the human rights issues have been deliberately obscured by the
introduction of irrelevant and in some instances deliberately diversionary arguments.

* Address for correspondence – Croft End, Lowick Bridge, Cumbria LA12 8EE. doug@ukcaf.org

VIEW FULL REPORT HERE: human_rights_civil_liberties_and_water_fluoridation