Consent and Water Fluoridation

[MedicSansBrains]

It is a violation but is unfortunately not as enforceable as you'd think. The best thing would be to stop it from being added to the water supply.

While there are traces of many medications in our water supply I'm not able to do anything about that. Forcing medicated citizens to poop and pee in a bucket and burry it (I guess) is unreasonable and also a breech of civil rights... I think.

The fundemental difference for me is that fluoride isn't being inadvertently added to the water supply it's actively being added and there are many studies, scientists, dentists, etc that are actively speaking out against the adverse public health effects of doing so.

 

[Summit]

Oh what a pretty little meme from these anti-vaxxer anti-science-based-medicine weirdos: http://www.collective-evolution.com/

Charles Heyd was a surgeon, a vice president, not president, and in 1936

I thought you wanted an honest debate?

 

[MedicSansBrains]

lol your right. cheap trick. no meme punches will be pulled. I'm ashamed.

Well I understand your argument. I guess you understand mine.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

A great resource of the anti-fluoride arguments and research if anyone's interested. I have not the energy to regurgitate every finite detail on forum.

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/conclusion.html

 

[MedicSansBrains]

www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts-toc.html is the main source of pro-fluoride arguments

 

[ERDoc]

www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts-toc.html is the main source of pro-fluoride arguments

So guys and girls who are experts at taking care of teeth are for something that benefits the health of teeth. Do you find that surprising? Do you think they might know a thing or two? But again, you are arguing the good/bad of actually putting the fluoride in the water, not the ethics of consent. There is also a difference between what is legal and what is ethical. Fluoridation is legal, since it is being done.

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.

Change cocaine to haldol and I will invest every penny I have in your company and volunteer to be CEO.

 

[Summit]

If ADA opposed fluoridation the conspiracy theorists would claim it was "all about the money" and "bad for dentistry business to have flouridated water" and call for greedy dentists to be hung.

 

[Akulahawk]

In a manner of speaking, we all gave consent to the fluoridation of our drinking water when we elected representatives to do things, for the good of all of us, on our behalf. While I believe that the collective IQ of our elected representatives is near zero, they do at least think they're trying to do the right thing for all of us.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

So guys and girls who are experts at taking care of teeth are for something that benefits the health of teeth. Do you find that surprising? Do you think they might know a thing or two? But again, you are arguing the good/bad of actually putting the fluoride in the water, not the ethics of consent. There is also a difference between what is legal and what is ethical. Fluoridation is legal, since it is being done.



Change cocaine to haldol and I will invest every penny I have in your company and volunteer to be CEO.

Haldol it is! haha

No I posted links to both sides! I'm trying to be fair. Legal because it's being done is a lazy argument. Come on.

In the end there are many other things to argue about and will kill me. I'm not so concerned about the fluoridation itself. It's the consent part that bothers me.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

If ADA opposed fluoridation the conspiracy theorists would claim it was "all about the money" and "bad for dentistry business to have flouridated water" and call for greedy dentists to be hung.

Hmmm this is true! It's all a conspiracy of the ADA!

 

[Carlos Danger]

Interesting question, really. I think a lot of us hear these concerns and dismiss them out of hand because we assume anything coming from even the same general direction as the conspiracy theorist / anti-vax crowd is just nonsensical idiocy.

But honestly, I kind of get the point of the OP and the folks in Austin:

1. Fluoride is a drug that is being essentially forced on everyone, whether or not they want or need it.
2. Forcing an individual to take a drug that they don't want or need is wrong.
3. Therefore, mass fluoridation is wrong.

You might argue in favor of the utilitarian perspective on the situation ("we need to do the most good for the most people, and screw the minority") - and that's obviously the position that the government has taken on this and most issues - but that line of reasoning is fraught with problems, primarily the slippery slope. Using utilitarian reasoning, it would be perfectly OK for the government to start putting any drug they thought would be a net benefit to public health in our water, or in the air we breath.

I doubt fluoridation is the least bit harmful to anyone, and the benefits from probably do far outweigh the costs. Still, the libertarian part of me I completely understands why people don't like it.

So in principle I agree with the people who are against it. But I think we have much more important things to worry about our government doing.

 

[Meursault]

You might argue in favor of the utilitarian perspective on the situation ("we need to do the most good for the most people, and screw the minority")

That would probably be a better criticism if anyone were being meaningfully harmed, and no, substances that are toxic in large single doses are not therefore chronically toxic in tiny frequent doses. And no, tooth discoloration is not meaningful harm. And no, your pineal gland is not calcifying, and that's not why you don't have psychic powers. I'm completely fine with adulterating water and air with any demonstrably safe and sometimes beneficial substances we can get into them.

Well that was fun. What public health measure is next on the list? Is there a Consumers for Informed Lead Paint Choices?

I'm not sure I understand the term "public health".

 

[Carlos Danger]

That would probably be a better criticism if anyone were being meaningfully harmed, and no, substances that are toxic in large single doses are not therefore chronically toxic in tiny frequent doses. And no, tooth discoloration is not meaningful harm. And no, your pineal gland is not calcifying, and that's not why you don't have psychic powers. I'm completely fine with adulterating water and air with any demonstrably safe and sometimes beneficial substances we can get into them.

Well that was fun. What public health measure is next on the list? Is there a Consumers for Informed Lead Paint Choices?

Who are you to decide that tooth discoloration isn't "meaningful" harm?

Actually, whether any "meaningful harm" results or not is irrelevant. Anytime an individual is forced by the government to ingest a substance that the individual doesn't want or need, that individual has been wronged. Period. If you want to live in an infantilized society where everyone relies on and trusts government bureaucrats to make such personal decisions, good for you. I and many others feel differently, and I happen to believe that we should err on the side of individual liberty.

 

[Meursault]

Anytime an individual is forced by the government to ingest a substance

Probably not the thread to get into the legitimacy of the state, so we'll gloss over that.
The gubmint provides a water supply. This socialized water supply is an alternative to drilling your own well or drinking from puddles. They compel citizens to pay for it partly, but I'm guessing not entirely, by charging for water used. They use that money to provide water through a system entirely of their devising, designed based on their beliefs about what a good water supply is: mineral and pathogen content of the water, pressure, areas served, economic incentives, etc.
They don't compel citizens to drink the water.
Choosing to provide a specific kind of water might be bad on other grounds, for instance, harmful or inequitable, but it can't violate individual liberties.

 

[Carlos Danger]

They don't compel citizens to drink the water

Uh, OK......

In many places - and I would be pretty surprised if Austin is not one of these - zoning and the other regulations make it impossible to drill one's own well. In fact, it is virtually impossible not to drive on government roads, drink government water, use government utilities, and opt out of the "protection" provided by government police and other services. So "just don't use the utility that you were already forced to pay for if you don't want to" is not a solution.

But the government knows what is best for us and always has our interests in mind, so it's OK.

 

[MedicSansBrains]

gubmint

 

[Meursault]

In fact, it is virtually impossible not to drive on government roads, drink government water, use government utilities, and opt out of the "protection" provided by government police and other services. So "just don't use the utility that you were already forced to pay for if you don't want to" is not a solution.

This is sort of what I meant by "getting into the legitimacy of the state".
But for the sake of argument, let's accept that there's an effective state monopoly on water, and that that's ethically relevant. What standards should the gubmint use for supplying water?

 

[Carlos Danger]

This is sort of what I meant by "getting into the legitimacy of the state".

Yep. You don't have to drill very far into any issue before you hit the question of "does the government even have the moral authority to be doing/regulating/taxing/forcing this"?

This is sort of what I meant by "getting into the legitimacy of the state".
But for the sake of argument, let's accept that there's an effective state monopoly on water, and that that's ethically relevant. What standards should the gubmint use for supplying water?

Whatever standards have to be implemented to make the supply safe to drink, and to keep the whole system as efficient and cost-effective as possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

If the government feels that fluoride supplementation is such a pressing public health issue that it must get involved and supply fluoride, then supplements should be made free to those who want them. Not dumped into the entire water supply.

 

[joshrunkle35]

Interesting question, really. I think a lot of us hear these concerns and dismiss them out of hand because we assume anything coming from even the same general direction as the conspiracy theorist / anti-vax crowd is just nonsensical idiocy.

But honestly, I kind of get the point of the OP and the folks in Austin:

1. Fluoride is a drug that is being essentially forced on everyone, whether or not they want or need it.
2. Forcing an individual to take a drug that they don't want or need is wrong.
3. Therefore, mass fluoridation is wrong.

You might argue in favor of the utilitarian perspective on the situation ("we need to do the most good for the most people, and screw the minority") - and that's obviously the position that the government has taken on this and most issues - but that line of reasoning is fraught with problems, primarily the slippery slope. Using utilitarian reasoning, it would be perfectly OK for the government to start putting any drug they thought would be a net benefit to public health in our water, or in the air we breath.

I doubt fluoridation is the least bit harmful to anyone, and the benefits from probably do far outweigh the costs. Still, the libertarian part of me I completely understands why people don't like it.

So in principle I agree with the people who are against it. But I think we have much more important things to worry about our government doing.

I agree with every word here, wholeheartedly. It's not the what, but the how and the who.

 

[Meursault]

Whatever standards have to be implemented to make the supply safe to drink, and to keep the whole system as efficient and cost-effective as possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

So the absolute minimum required to keep the water supply from being an actual public health hazard, quality-wise, but at the same time, whatever it takes to make the system optimally efficient? Is the goal high-quality cost-conscious delivery of barely drinkable water? Would it be acceptable to spend some appropriated money on improving the sensory qualities of the water, so it's not brown and reeking of chlorine?
How safe do we need to make the water supply; do we need to reduce long-term accumulation of actual toxins, like PCBs, or just prevent waterborne epidemics?

Cost-effectiveness is a dangerous criterion: you have to specify what effects you want.

If the government feels that fluoride supplementation is such a pressing public health issue that it must get involved and supply fluoride, then supplements should be made free to those who want them. Not dumped into the entire water supply.

Even if that wastes more appropriated money to accomplish less?
And to be clear, it's absolutely okay for the government to spend appropriated money on addressing the population's dental health?

It's not the what, but the how and the who.

Does changing the "who" matter? If a non-state water monopoly starts fluoridating, is that different? Are their intentions relevant?