Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 31 July 2008 (Fix this article... references were all to much larger concentrations of fluoride than currently in drinking water...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Water fluoridation conspiracy theory refers to the set of beliefs by activists opposed to the fluoridation of public water supplies.

Ethics

Many people who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory mass medication. They argue that consent of all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor monitor their response. It is also argued that, because of the negative health effects of fluoride exposure, mandatory fluoridation of public water supplies is a breach of ethics and a human rights violation.

In the United Kingdom the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison, claim that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Water fluoridation has also been criticized by Cross and Carton for violating the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.

Health risks

While large amounts of fluoride have been linked to health concerns, the small amounts of fluoride in public drinking supplies poses no documented health risk to consumers.

Court cases

United States

Fluoridation has been the subject of many court cases. Activists have sued municipalities, asserting that their rights to consent to medical treatment, privacy, and due process are infringed by mandatory water fluoridation. Individuals have sued municipalities for a number of illnesses that they believe were caused by fluoridation of the city's water supply. So far, the majority of courts have held in favor of cities in such cases, finding no or only a tenuous connection between health problems and widespread water fluoridation. To date, no federal appellate court or state court of last resort (i.e., state supreme court) has found water fluoridation to be unlawful.

Early cases

A flurry of cases were heard in numerous state courts across the U.S. in the 1950s during the early years of water fluoridation. State courts consistently held in favor of allowing fluoridation to continue, analogizing fluoridation to mandatory vaccination and the use of other chemicals to clean the public water supply, both of which had a long-standing history of acceptance by courts.

In 1952, a Federal Regulation was adopted that stated in part, "The Federal Security Agency will regard water supplies containing fluorine, within the limitations recommended by the Public Health Service, as not actionable under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma analogized water fluoridation to mandatory vaccination in a 1954 case. The court noted, "we think the weight of well-reasoned modern precedent sustains the right of municipalities to adopt such reasonable and undiscriminating measures to improve their water supplies as are necessary to protect and improve the public health, even though no epidemic is imminent and no contagious disease or virus is directly involved . . . . To us it seems ridiculous and of no consequence in considering the public health phase of the case that the substance to be added to the water may be classed as a mineral rather than a drug, antiseptic or germ killer; just as it is of little, if any, consequence whether fluoridation accomplishes its beneficial result to the public health by killing germs in the water, or by hardening the teeth or building up immunity in them to the bacteria that causes caries or tooth decay. If the latter, there can be no distinction on principle between it and compulsory vaccination or inoculation, which, for many years, has been well-established as a valid exercise of police power."

In the 1955 case Froncek v. City of Milwaukee, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of a circuit court which held that "the fluoridation is not the practice of medicine, dentistry, or pharmacy, by the City" and that "the legislation is a public health measure, bearing a real, substantial, and reasonable relation to the health of the city."

The Supreme Court of Ohio, in 1955's Kraus v. City of Cleveland, said, "Plaintiff's argument that fluoridation constitutes mass medication, the unlawful practice of medicine and adulteration may be answered as a whole. Clearly, the addition of fluorides to the water supply does not violate such principles any more than the chlorination of water, which has been held valid many times."

Fluoridation consensus

In 1973, as cases continued to be brought in state courts, a consensus developed that fluoridation, at least from a legal standpoint, was acceptable. In 1973's Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, said, "Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question."

Contemporary challenges

Advocates continue to make contemporary challenges to the spread of fluoridation. For instance, in 2002, the city of Watsonville, California chose to disregard a California law mandating fluoridation of water systems with 10,000 or more hookups, and the dispute between the city and the state ended up in court. The trial court and the intermediate appellate court ruled in favor of the state and its fluoridation mandate, however, and the Supreme Court of California declined to hear the case in February of 2006. Since 2000, courts in Washington, Maryland, and Texas have reached similar conclusions. Citizens for Safe Drinking Water is raising money to support a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction against public water districts' use of unapproved drugs in the drinking water supply in the United States.

Republic of Ireland

In Ryan v. Attorney General (1965), the Supreme Court of Ireland held that water fluoridation did not infringe the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity. However, the court found that such a right to bodily integrity did exist, despite the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland, thus establishing the doctrine of unenumerated rights in Irish constitutional law.

References

Footnotes

1. Cite error: The named reference FluorideDebateQ34 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Fluoride Primer: Fluoridation is a serious breach of ethics, International Institute of Concern for Public Health website, accessed 22 February, 2006.
3. Water fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. A Green Party press office briefing. 8 July, 2003. Paragraphs 56, 57 and 59 of the Home Office Guidance Notes on the application of the Human Rights Act establish that fluoridation violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act, and also Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Since fluoridation is the illegal administration of a registered poison with no medicinal authorisation, it constitutes a State sanctioned criminal act against the public, and is incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Where children are involved - indeed, specifically targeted - such an act also raise issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
4. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2003 Jan-Mar;9(1):24-9. Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights. Cross DW, Carton RJ. "The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics, including the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999."
5. Cross, D. W., R. J. Carton. "Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights.", abstract from PubMed website, page accessed 19 March, 2006.
6. ^ Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) ("Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question." (citations omitted)). Cite error: The named reference "beck" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
7. Pratt, Edwin, Raymond D. Rawson & Mark Rubin, Fluoridation at Fifty: What Have We Learned, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics 117, 119 (Fall 2002)
8. 17 Fed. Reg. 6743 (July 23, 1952).
9. ^ 273 P.2d 859, 862-63 (Okl. 1954) (available at FindLaw for Legal Professionals)
10. 69 N.W.2d 242, 252 (Wis. 1955)
11. 127 N.E.2d 609, 613 (Ohio 1955)
12. Jones, Donna "Supreme Court turns down Watsonville's appeal to keep fluoride out of its water." Santa Cruz Sentinel. February 10, 2006.
13. Parkland Light & Water Co. v. Tacoma-Pierce County Bd. of Health, 90 P.3d 37 (Wash. 2004)
14. Pure Water Committee of W. MD., Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Pure Water Comm. of W. MD., Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, MD. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 22095654 (D.Md. 2003)
15. Espronceda v. City of San Antonio, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2003 WL 21203878 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003)
16. Citizens uniting against fluoride. Large-scale lawsuit seeks to ban chemical poisoning of water supply. May 13, 2008. Chelsea Schilling. WorldNetDaily.
17. Ryan v. A.G. IESC 1; IR 294 (3 July, 1965) — text of the Irish Supreme Court's judgement

External links

• Fluoride Action Network
• Template:DMOZ

• Dentistry
• Fluorine
• Water treatment
• Environmental controversies
• Medical controversies
• Political controversies