Page 630 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (11.55): Madam Speaker, the major argument with regard to artificial fluoridation of our water supplies is to do with rights. Does the individual have the right to determine what chemicals or drugs they or their families will take? Is there any authority in Australia that has commented on the issue? In the Choice handbook Your Health Rights, put out by the Australian Consumers Association, with a foreword by the Federal Minister for Health at the time, Dr Neal Blewett, mention is made of various aspects of our health rights. It says:
Doctors are experts but they are not infallible ... doctors may disagree with each other over the best treatment for particular problems. The final decision is ours ... We need not ... submit to their treatments unless we so choose. It is up to us to stand up for what we regard as our rights ... it is our right to live our lives free from unwanted bodily interference.
Paul McCormick, a research fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, said:
The crucial question is not "Will fluoridation do some good?". It is "Has the State the right to fluoridate the water supply?". The issue revolves round the question of the legal, moral and political rights of the individual. Medicine must be the servant of the individual, not his master. It is the business of the medical profession to offer help to those who ask for it, not to impose treatment on those who do not wish to receive it. It cannot be denied that fluoridation is medical treatment in the strict sense - it is not purification in the sense of "treating the water" but medical treatment in the sense of "treating the person". It is exactly the same as a doctor treating a patient - except that he does not know his name, or his medical history, or what precise dosage of the drug he will receive, or indeed whether he even needs the treatment. One fact, however, is known - that a large number of people who will be forced to drink fluoridated water are strongly opposed to doing so. It is no consolation to them that they will also be forced to pay for the privilege of this unwanted treatment and that it may do them some real harm.
The question is, as we discussed in the compulsory pushbike helmets debate yesterday, whether or not people have the right to decide for themselves. It is truly a matter of freedom of choice. When we get to the situation where politicians and health officials start to tell us what we can and cannot do with our lives, and what drugs we can and cannot take, do we not have exactly the same problem?
Let us say that there is a major problem in society from people drinking too much, causing cirrhosis of the liver. Would it not be reasonable for medical authorities to say, "Look, there is a particular chemical or drug or vitamin that is going to help cure or prevent this problem". Looking at the fact that this can cause death and other problems, what reason would there be not to also include that in the water supply? Judge Jauncey commented on this very issue.
Mr Humphries: Who is he?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .