The subject of water fluoridation in New
Zealand can turn a casual conversation at a typical summer BBQ into a
parliamentary debate complete with petty comments, unrepentant fallacies and
the raising of blood pressure on both sides. Pro fluoridation and anti
fluoridation advocates alike tend to take their stances quite firmly and
proudly. And so they should, this is New Zealand, the little island known for
being adept at navigating the waters of social change and allowing citizens to retain their right of choice.
But there are elements about water
fluoridation that poses a real quandary for both sides of the controversy. Does
water fluoridation equate to forced mass medication and therefore does the
consideration to fluoridate New Zealand water diminish our rights as
individuals to choose what we ingest? If we minus the arguments surrounding the
safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation from the debate
the one remaining facet is that of the ethics of water fluoridation.
I guess I need to admit something before
continuing. I believe that water fluoridation could be incredibly helpful in
New Zealand. The scientific research I
found completely dismissed anti fluoridation’s arguments that water fluoridation
causes cancer, kidney problems, and oh of course, the mildly humorous
proposition that fluoridated water drops the I.Q of people drinking it. However
mention the ethical stance that water fluoridation results in a “nanny state”
and I leap right over to the side of anti fluoridation, proudly waving my
placard renouncing the medication of the masses by our over bearing government.
I doubt I differ from most pro fluoridation
advocates. I suppose many of them would
agree that forcing strategies like water fluoridation on people sounds slightly
archaic. And then they could swiftly justify the ethical element by stating
that the benefits outweigh the risks.
But it is that need to disprove the other side and swift justification
that will hinder the debate in the long run.
The ethical implications that are faced by water fluoridation need to be
discussed by both sides. Not just used
as a tool to support their respective arguments. But to be used to start a
conversation about what is good for all of New Zealanders.
New Zealand has long been a front-runner in
advancing the rights of its citizens. We
were one of the first countries to give women the right to vote, to legalize prostitution,
and to legalize gay marriage. Why should
we turn our back on human rights now to incorporate a strategy that essentially
removes our right to choose? I am confident that New Zealand can make the right
decision but only if we choose to identify the most import factor in this
debate: Is water fluoridation ethical?
I really enjoyed reading this post Nadine. Very informative and really well written. What a controversial topic indeed! I believe that water fluoridation offers benefits to the population and I am inclined to agree with the idea, but I understand the ethical implications behind the topic. It is easy to go against an idea when it is forced upon us, after all it breaches our right of choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point about mass medicating people. I feel that for it to be appropriate the benefits need to outweigh the disadvantages. In this case, an ethical question is asked as to whether it is right to take away the choice of everyone to benefit a possibly small number of people, if any. I have grown up without fluoridated water and have had no serious issues with my teeth, however those living in poverty type environments may be hugely benefited by a decision to fluoridate water. This is what makes this topic such a huge point of debate, as do many ethically related questions.
ReplyDelete