Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura.
On July 9th, 2013, the Otago Daily Times featured an article, openly admitting that the New Zealand population – despite being exposed for many decades to fluoridation – has not been adequately monitored for potential developmental health effects; and only now is data being collated to look for potential adverse impacts (1).
If we break this situation down, the following points are indisputable:
1. New Zealand governmental and health authorities have exposed their population to fluoridation chemicals, via drinking water, for decades;
2. Academic researchers in New Zealand now openly admit that there is a dearth of research data on potential negative developmental health impacts;
3. Academic researchers are now conducting scientific research to determine the extent of the potential impacts of the long-term, uncontrolled, population-wide experiment, whilst simultaneously admitting, “There have been many things in medicine that have not always turned out the way people want them to turn out” (1).
4. Informed consent for ongoing experimentation has not been obtained from all individuals within fluoridated communities; nor has consent been obtained from all individuals for the subsequent scientific research being conducted upon them.
According to the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2), “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society” (Article 3) and, “In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community… In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent” (Article 6).
For all those individuals residing in fluoridated communities in New Zealand – who have NOT provided their informed consent to be treated with fluoridation chemicals; and who have NOT provided their subsequent consent to scientific research related to the treatment – it seems the basis for legal actions against fluoridation-pushing authorities is growing more powerful by the day.
It is also important to remember that the argument for “effectiveness” of a treatment is no defense for overriding individual informed consent to treatment; nor does this argument provide a legitimate excuse for non-consensual community-wide scientific research. Furthermore, as per the Declaration, community leaders or authorities cannot override the enshrined human right of individual informed consent to treatment.
This is particularly significant in relation to local New Zealand councils claiming they have the right to decide, on behalf of their constituents, whether fluoridation will commence or continue; or whether a majority vote will create a mandate to force the treatment upon the non-consenting minority. Once again, neither of these claims provide a legitimate excuse for overriding individual informed consent.
Further reading & viewing