Consent and Water Fluoridation

[MedicSansBrains]

In Austin, TX there is a movement in the city council to stop fluoridating the municipal water supply. MD's argue that it is bad for the population while another argues it is good.

The arguement for it being bad is obvious; fluoride is the most corrosive and electronegative element and it's dental hygeine uses are only topical not ingested (don't swallow your toothpaste). The argument for it being good is it is the only way many people in the population get access to dental hygiene...

Those arguments aside it becomes pretty obvious to this EMT that we are dealing with the issue of consent, not fluorides validity as a dental hygiene medication. The first thing that was drilled into my head in basic school was consent, and the high-turnover and ptsd rates but anyway. I can't force a person of sound mind who is aware of the consequences to take any tx or rx.

Therefore, the argument of whether or not it is bad for you is moot. It's a legal argument because a whole population, in this case Austin Municipal of 1.25 million, is being medicated either against their will or unknowingly. I haven't heard any citizen stand up and say "I know it's there and I want my fluoride" but I guess it's possible.

So let's avoid the good for you bad for you argument and ask the question we are better suited to answer here; is this a breach of civil liberties?

Thanks!

Just so you know I say it most certainly is.

 

[ERDoc]

No one is making you drink the water. If you don't want to drink it, you could always buy bottled water.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

Unfortunately not.

- Most bottled waters are taken from municipal water supplies and resold under a new name. There is no need to mark whether or not it is fluoridated in the first place.

- What if I couldn't afford to drink all bottled water. Also, it's a very unnecessary waste.

- No eating at local restaurants because all the water they cook with is municipal water.

- Can't take showers with bottled water.

- I must have water to live.

 

[Flying]

I'm informing my British acquaintances of this thread. This will be a blast for them.

 

[ERDoc]

You make the comparison to what you learned in EMT school. There is a big difference between EMT school and public health and safety. So fluoride is the most corrosive and electronegative element? What is the significance of that? Do you have any idea what electronegativity is? Have you ever seen how destructive and dangerous dihydromonoxide is? Yet, our drinking water is full of it. Tell me how many people you know who have been harmed by the Fluoride in the drinking water? You said you don't want to debate whether it is good or bad yet you build your argument on just that.

 

[Summit]

1. You don't need consent to have your water chlorinated either. Because public health.

2. Toothpaste isn't a medicine.

3. MedicSansBrains... what a screen name.

I found this file photo:

 

[MedicSansBrains]

Thanks for already ruining the thread with ad hominem attacks on my intelligence. I tried to frame the debate to avoid that but failed by allowing opinion on the subject to displayed in my "electronegative" comment.

I'm sure you have some intelligent things to contribute to the question of whether or not medicating the water supply is ethical and legal, which is the debate in city councils.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

1. You don't need consent to have your water chlorinated either. Because public health.

2. Toothpaste isn't a medicine.

3. MedicSansBrains... what a screen name.

I found this file photo:

Didn't say toothpaste was medicine... Also, chlorine is used to purify the water supply not medicate the population to improve dental health of a given community.

 

[ERDoc]

I'm not sure if you are referring to me or to Summit in regards to ruining the thread but if you are referring to me, I never made any ad hominem attacks on your intelligence. I think it is perfectly appropriate to ask if you understand a concept if you are using it as the basis of your argument. If you want to argue ethics, it depends on which ethical model you chose to use. The benefits far outweigh the risks and protects a large, vulnerable portion of our society who would otherwise not have access to it. Maybe it is not necessary in utopias such as Austin but in most of the country where there are huge populations that don't have access to dental care we are looking at doing the most good for the most people.

 

[Summit]

Chlorination is a public health measure. So is flouridation. Both are "ooh scary" electronegative halogens!

Flouridated toothpaste isn't medication. Neither is flouridated or chloridated water.

 

[ERDoc]

Chlorination is a public health measure. So is flouridation. Both are "ooh scary" electronegative halogens!

Flouridated toothpaste isn't medication. Neither is flouridated or chloridated water.

The only thing about this is that the FDA has already determined that Fluoride is a drug, which is the pitfall the OP wants you to fall into.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

d'accord. I understand that the science can be argued both ways. I'm not interested in arguing the science because that is a lengthy process of study not debate. Not that you aren't smart and couldn't argue it thoroughly but I think it's best left to research not a chat forum.

And yes... I do know what electronegative means... Nothing I've said would lead one to think otherwise. Your asking me that is undermining intelligence just like me asking you do you know what ad hominem means. Please don't drag my intelligence into the debate. It's not nice : (

The facts are -

Fluoride is being added to our water supply (Austin) for the expressed purpose of improving dental health, not sanitation. The assumption I'm making is that this would make it a form of medication.

It is being done so without the consent of the community.

There are many other aspects to argue but the question I ask is a legal one based on these two facts with an assumption between them.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

The only thing about this is that the FDA has already determined that Fluoride is a drug, which is the pitfall the OP wants you to fall into.

I set no such pitfalls! Sir!

 

[Summit]

Fluoride is being added to our water supply (Austin) for the expressed purpose of improving dental health, not sanitation. The assumption I'm making is that this would make it a form of medication.

Chlorination: Public health measure to prevent water born illness
Fluoridation: Public health measure to prevent dental caries

Both are ingested by the public.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

Chlorination: Public health measure to prevent water born illness
Fluoridation: Public health measure to prevent dental caries

Both are ingested by the public.

True. Interesting argument and I've thought of it before. The answer I come up with is a little complex.

Chlorination is used to kill the pathogens in the water, not my stomach although it does. Fluoride is used to kill the pathogens on my teeth not the bacteria in the water.

I suppose if the fluoride was being added with the expressed purpose of water sanitation it would be a measure of public sanitation as it were. But it's not. Therefore, it's a medication being administered for the purpose of altering my bodies biochemistry.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

That is why the FDA classifies Fluoride as a drug. I'm not aware of chlorine being used medically. Fluoride is, however. Pitfall, oops. Gotcha! Maybe not haha. Is there a logical argument against this?

 

[MedicSansBrains]

I'm not sure if you are referring to me or to Summit in regards to ruining the thread but if you are referring to me, I never made any ad hominem attacks on your intelligence. I think it is perfectly appropriate to ask if you understand a concept if you are using it as the basis of your argument. If you want to argue ethics, it depends on which ethical model you chose to use. The benefits far outweigh the risks and protects a large, vulnerable portion of our society who would otherwise not have access to it. Maybe it is not necessary in utopias such as Austin but in most of the country where there are huge populations that don't have access to dental care we are looking at doing the most good for the most people.

While I'm still sulking at the attack on my intelligence : ( I do understand and appreciate your argument. Most good for the most people utilitarian argument (if I'm not mistaken) is valid and makes sense.

What about removing the ethics from it. Just the legal. Assuming fluoride is a medication, and like you said the FDA has said it is however unwise this might be, and is being administered indiscriminately wouldn't this be illegal?

In my stupid EMT school (that doesn't teach public health..?), I was warned against this treating people who don't want treatment. I would be charged with assault and loose my license/job and be sued.

How does this change in the context of water fluoridation? I'm not sure I understand the term "public health" and how it changes the parameters of medication administration.

 

[Summit]

Fluoride is used to kill the pathogens on my teeth not the bacteria in the water.

Not how it works...

Therefore, it's a medication being administered for the purpose of altering my bodies biochemistry.

It facilitates remineralization of enamel that was just demineralized by cariogenic biofilms. So it facilitates a natural reaction on the avascular porous surface of your teeth.

Hardly "altering the body's biochemistry" any more than ingested chlorine.

Both chlorine and flouride have 2ppm max limits. In some areas fluoride is naturally occurring above the 2ppm limit and is thus reduced in treatment. That is how fluoride was discovered to be useful in this public health role.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

Ah, ok. Not a gotcha question but you are saying that it alters the bodies biochemistry, right? Not that it matters because I'm not sure what actually defines something as a medication or not. The only thing we have going on that facet is the FDA saying it is. Not sure why they say it is.

Fluoride is a naturally occuring substance in water. The medical good bad argument I've been trying to avoid comes up when discussing the allowance ppm. 2ppm is sound by most accounts in most people. However, our water supply is tested consistently at 7+ppm and in some places significantly higher. 30+ppm and beyond. Also, many special populations have been shown to be more sensitive to fluoride at lower doses. Like an allergy in laymen terms.

FDA says it's a medication. Water municipalities argue that their reason for using it is for this medicinal purpose. I don't wan't to be medicated with fluoride, however unreasonable and insane my decision is. Therefore, my rights are being infringed upon the same as if trace amounts of radiation were released into the airvents at my work because "it's a healthy dose at xxx threshold that will make you healthier for reason xxx."

Whether or not you think the same way I do about fluoridating the water supply does not mean that you or the government is allowed to force it upon me. What if I thought that adding cocaine to the water supply, a regulated FDA medication, was the answer to laziness and depression. I started a company to convince municipalities to add it to the water supply.

Cocaine is found in trace amount in our water supply also. Cocaine has limited but medicinal uses also. I don't see an argument yet making it legally sound to medicate the water supply. I see whitty points and personal attacks.

 

[Summit]

There's plenty of things found in your water supply that are active ingredients in medications or their metabolites because they exist in amounts vastly below the threshold where it becomes a public health concern... and it is really expensive to remove them.

7ppm, not to mention 30ppm is an EPA MCLG violation! That is an ENFORCEABLE regulatory limit. That is a totally separate issue. Is your water naturally fluoridated or is your water district that incompetent?