I REPLY to your question: What do you think of fluoride?

Firstly, I refer to the Family Law Reform Act of 1968, Ch. 1: "Providing only one glass of artificial fluoridated water is given, it would constitute a trespass on the person over the age of 16 years, and that the provider could be prosecuted for giving a class 'A' poison.

In English law, medical treatment is only permitted by court order on a minor with the guardian's consent.

It, therefore, implies that a person has forfeited their legal rights by criminal activity or that they are unfit through youth or insanity to exercise them. Fluoridation puts every individual in this position. It is an affront to human dignity, which is explicitly recognised as a major objective in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over his/her body and mind, the individual is "sovereign". Fluoridation is not only contrary to the spirit of the law of England, but also to the letter of the law, which then raises the question of rule of law. Law will be the first casualty of Fluoridation. From the ethical point, fluoridation is wrong on several counts:-

It is an assumption of moral superiority. It amounts to saying - "Some people's wishes can be ignored because other people know (or think they do) what is good for them, whether they want it or not." It encourages bad medical ethics, thinking that it is permissible to prescribe, not for the individual, but indiscriminately for the masses irrespective of individual differences; and thinking that it is permissible to prescribe and virtually coerce patients to take a poison they do not wish to take. The crucial question is - who defines health? Is it the individual or the state? It is not a simple, technical or medical problem. It is a valued judgement to be made in the light of an individual's philosophy of his life.

M Casstles

North Against Fluoridation Campaign

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.