Page 2707 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In their submissions to the ACT fluoride inquiry, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association and the National Health and Medical Research Council once again gave their unfailing and longstanding support to the practice of artificial fluoridation. Let us look at exactly what these bodies are advocating when they approve of the drug fluoride being dispensed in this way: Firstly, the patient is not consulted or examined before receiving the drug; secondly, the medical history, individual susceptibility, chronic illness or possible allergic or other reaction of the patient is not determined; thirdly, the strength of the dose is not related to the age, weight or size of the patient; fourthly, the patient is not informed of any adverse side effects caused by the drug; fifthly, the state of the patient's teeth, or even whether they have any, is not considered; sixthly, there is no check on the total intake of the drug which the patient may already be ingesting from other sources; seventhly, the drug has not undergone testing procedures that are now legally required to check the safety of any new drug before its use; eighthly, the dose of the drug is determined by how much tap water the patient drinks - in other words, the patient's thirst - not by a competent physician on a case by case basis; and, ninthly, the drug is administered compulsorily, even against the patient's will.
Sir Stanton Hicks, the noted Australian professor of pharmacology and physiology, spoke on the matter of medical ethics. He said:
I submit that medication of a whole populace variable in individual response, regardless of individual age, state of teeth, of general health, rate of consumption of water, and so on, is quite unscientific and unethical, and that passive acceptance of the right of a government or municipal authority to implement such medication through its water supply is to sacrifice a fundamental principle of medical practice.
Dr Edward Hamlyn was the medical adviser to the House of Commons All Party Committee on Freedom of Information in 1978. He showed how even doctors can be misinformed. He stated:
Since first hearing recommendations by medical authorities that fluoride should be added to those public water supplies alleged to be deficient in fluoride in order to reduce tooth decay in children, I had always assumed that such authorities could be relied upon. I was far too busy to get involved in the fluoridation controversy and readily accepted what the "experts" said. I also accepted the view that people who were against fluoridation were cranks and I never bothered to listen to what they had to say, or read what they wrote.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .