[Gary Barlow]

I dont recall drinking much tap water as a kid, tastes disgusting. Probably because of all that fluoride they put in it.
If they really want to administer fluoride to kids teeth they should start putting it in dairylea lunchables and fruit winders, those were the staple diet of my childhood.

[Gary Barlow]

Also McDonalds Happy Meals

[cl_steele]

(Original post by The Bright Beast)
No, it should not be fluoridated - nobody should have the right to put chemicals (whether benevolent, inert or harmful) in our bodies without consent. Judith Jarvis Thomson used the analogy of the famous violinist using your kidneys as dialysis without your permission as a way to argue that the right to choose what happens in your own body overrides the right to someone's life in terms of abortion, but it can easily be applied here. The right to choose what happens in our body should override the health benefits possibly obtained from fluoridation.

(Fluoridation could be beneficial, but it's the fact that it would be non-consensual and difficult to stop for people who opposed it.)


EDIT: really, negging for my opinion?

As Idle said youre not forced to drink the water?

[bigbottle]

(Original post by cl_steele)
As Idle said youre not forced to drink the water?

Well if your water supplier adds fluoride to the water supply, it's impossible for a few individuals to opt-out of it due to concerns.

[akilleez]

(Original post by Jeester)
Well when I'm at uni it comes from mains and I'm not bothered at all. Though I already have flouride protection so I don't think it makes much difference.

Are you bothered about it?

I wouldn't mind but I am unsure if the benefits outweigh the risks.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by bigbottle)
Well if your water supplier adds fluoride to the water supply, it's impossible for a few individuals to opt-out of it due to concerns.

again though theyre not under any obligation to use it, they can simply buy there water else where

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by cl_steele)
again though theyre not under any obligation to use it, they can simply buy there water else where

Given water fluoridation is principally targeted at deprived areas, the consumers are not in a pecuniary position to purchase bottled water on a regular basis or move elsewhere. No, they are not directly forced to consume it but it is manifestly unfeasible for them to consume the alternative as regularly as one would need to drink water, so I would still consider it to be forced medication. People shouldn't be required to consume superfluous products alongside something as essential as water; this is forced medication for a private, personally preventable and non-communicable condition, and is ethically unsound, in my opinion. If people wish to prevent tooth decay they can simply cut down on the sugary foods and brush their teeth regularly and properly.

[mimx]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Given water fluoridation is principally targeted at deprived areas, the consumers are not in a pecuniary position to purchase bottled water on a regular basis or move elsewhere. No, they are not directly forced to consume it but it is manifestly unfeasible for them to consume the alternative as regularly as one would need to drink water, so I would still consider it to be forced medication. People shouldn't be required to consume superfluous products alongside something as essential as water; this is forced medication for a private, personally preventable and non-communicable condition, and is ethically unsound, in my opinion. If people wish to prevent tooth decay they can simply cut down on the sugary foods and brush their teeth regularly and properly.

People (especially poor people who have less access to information and less of an education to judge that information) are not very good at determining the actual risk involved in e.g. consuming sugary foods or not adhering to a decent dental maintenance program. The government is and so takes steps to increase the welfare of these individuals who are incapable of doing it for themselves.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by mimx)
People (especially poor people who have less access to information and less of an education to judge that information) are not very good at determining the actual risk involved in e.g. consuming sugary foods or not adhering to a decent dental maintenance program. The government is and so takes steps to increase the welfare of these individuals who are incapable of doing it for themselves.

I don't buy that. Seriously, who doesn't know tooth decay is a corollary of infrequent dental cleansing and consumption of sugary foods? They may have less access to information, but not insofar as they are completely devoid of common sense—that is an incredibly patronising attitude. I don't believe it is a matter of knowledge, but a private, informed decision to consume sugary foods and not brush one's teeth regularly and properly. Because the condition is non-communicable and private, I do not consider forced medication to be ethically sound.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

Why would anyone voluntarily drink fluoridated water? The supposed health benefits have never been conclusively proven, so why do people mention them? According to some dentists, you don't even need to use toothpaste, the brushing motion is sufficient on its own.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Why would anyone voluntarily drink fluoridated water? The supposed health benefits have never been conclusively proven, so why do people mention them? According to some dentists, you don't even need to use toothpaste, the brushing motion is sufficient on its own.

I strongly doubt that.

[mimx]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I don't buy that. Seriously, who doesn't know tooth decay is a corollary of infrequent dental cleansing and consumption of sugary foods?

It's not simply about knowing whether it will or it won't, it's about judging the long term consequences of a certain level of consumption of these things. People don't generally have a black and white view where they either consume things or they don't, most will try an 'in moderation' approach. But without extensive information it's difficult to know just how much is too much.

Everyone knows, for example, that being overweight increases the risk of heart disease, but they don't know how varying levels of it affect the risk factor and so are unable to determine a level where they're happy enjoying it with an acceptable level of risk to them. You might say you're happy accepting a *slight* risk increase if you get to enjoy delicious steaks now and then, but I bet you wouldn't be able to work out what you should do to meet that requirement.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by mimx)
It's not simply about knowing whether it will or it won't, it's about judging the long term consequences of a certain level of consumption of these things. People don't generally have a black and white view where they either consume things or they don't, most will try an 'in moderation' approach. But without extensive information it's difficult to know just how much is too much.

Everyone knows, for example, that being overweight increases the risk of heart disease, but they don't know how varying levels of it affect the risk factor and so are unable to determine a level where they're happy enjoying it with an acceptable level of risk to them. You might say you're happy accepting a *slight* risk increase if you get to enjoy delicious steaks now and then, but I bet you wouldn't be able to work out what you should do to meet that requirement.

In the case of dental hygiene, as little sugar as possible and brushing at least twice a day are advised. The latter is common knowledge and the former has no set guidelines, which mean the poor have no less choice in the matter than the wealthy (i.e., nobody knows exactly what amount of sugar would precipitate tooth decay for any one person, so they keep it to a minimum). Since sugary/highly acidic foods are a luxury rather than a necessity, people have chosen to consume more sugar/acid than they need and are personally responsible for rejecting the advice of keeping such intakes to a minimum.

[mimx]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
In the case of dental hygiene, as little sugar as possible and brushing at least twice a day are advised.

Clearly people are still misjudging it regardless of the advice. If eating sugar (or fatty foods or whatever) causes more suffering than pleasure over the long term, then why would people do it. Either these individuals are not acting rationally or they are unaware of which decisions will maximize their welfare, in which case the government can make the decision for them. Indeed, not desiring flouride in your water supply is probably one such ignorant decision.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by mimx)
Clearly people are still misjudging it regardless of the advice. If eating sugar (or fatty foods or whatever) causes more suffering than pleasure over the long term, then why would people do it. Either these individuals are not acting rationally or they are unaware of which decisions will maximize their welfare, in which case the government can make the decision for them.

Because they have chosen to do so. It is not the government's place to ban things (in effect, this is a ban on unfluoridated mains water) or forcibly medicate people because they have chosen to do something that is harmful only to them. Where is the line drawn in such a case? In the case of actions that have no external impacts on other persons, the government's responsibility is to inform people of the costs/benefits of such actions then leave them to their own devices. If they continue to reject the advice—which, in the case of dental hygiene, they do, as it is common sense—that is their liberty.

Indeed, not desiring flouride in your water supply is probably one such ignorant decision.

It is possible, if the individual wishes to do so, to live without tooth decay without consuming fluoridated water. People should not be forced to consume superfluous products alongside something as essential as water.

[mimx]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Because they have chosen to do so. It is not the government's place to ban things (in effect, this is a ban on unfluoridated mains water) or forcibly medicate people because they have chosen to do something that is harmful only to them. Where is the line drawn in such a case? In the case of actions that have no external impacts on other persons, the government's responsibility is to inform people of the costs/benefits of such actions then leave them to their own devices. If they continue to reject this advice—which they do, as it is common sense—that is their liberty.

It is possible, if the individual wishes to do so, to live without tooth decay without consuming fluoridated water. People should not be forced to consume superfluous products alongside something as essential as water.

You're just stating an opinion now. I don't think free choice is inherently some great thing. That's just some silly idea ingrained into Western society. I see no point in letting people make bad decisions, especially when their overriding choice would be to maximize their own utility. Above all else, people want to gain as much 'pleasure' and avoid as much 'suffering' as possible. Why wouldn't we/the state guide them in that higher pursuit by correcting their smaller errors of judgement.

[cyfer]

(Original post by The Bright Beast)
No, it should not be fluoridated - nobody should have the right to put chemicals (whether benevolent, inert or harmful) in our bodies without consent. Judith Jarvis Thomson used the analogy of the famous violinist using your kidneys as dialysis without your permission as a way to argue that the right to choose what happens in your own body overrides the right to someone's life in terms of abortion, but it can easily be applied here. The right to choose what happens in our body should override the health benefits possibly obtained from fluoridation.

(Fluoridation could be beneficial, but it's the fact that it would be non-consensual and difficult to stop for people who opposed it.)


EDIT: really, negging for my opinion?

Are you special? Chlorine ensures we don't contract dysentry from water because it sterilises the water. Flouridating water would really just be great for kids with developing teeth

[nosaer]

Does anyone actually have any facts about the extent and use of fluoridated water?

I was speaking with an ex-CEO of a water company the other day, and he said the only two places in England that fluoridate their water are Solihull and Leeds IIRC.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I strongly doubt that.

Doubt all you like, it's just something I've heard.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by mimx)
You're just stating an opinion now. I don't think free choice is inherently some great thing. That's just some silly idea ingrained into Western society. I see no point in letting people make bad decisions, especially when their overriding choice would be to maximize their own utility. Above all else, people want to gain as much 'pleasure' and avoid as much 'suffering' as possible. Why wouldn't we/the state guide them in that higher pursuit by correcting their smaller errors of judgement.

As are you. Fortunately, we're not in a dictatorship, so your opinion on which actions will maximise one's private utility remains your opinion, and not a state-enforced opinion. People have the free choice to avoid tooth decay by taking well-known actions to ensure good dental hygiene. If they consciously choose to avoid these actions then they should be able to do so.

What else do you think should be banned to maximise private utility, out of interest? We may as well force people into a massive institution so the government can ensure every is getting the right nutrition and amount of exercise each day. Piercings and visible tattoos confer no direct utility other than the bearer's opinion on what is good for them, and in many cases reduce job prospects, so should also be banned. "No, you don't know what you're doing... let us lead your life for you." Your ideology is thankfully minimal in its following.