The Pros And Cons Of Fluoridation Of Water

All water sources, whether fresh or salt, have varying levels of fluoride (Awofeso, 2012). Around 1945 it was discovered that communities with higher rates of naturally occurring fluoride had lower rates of tooth decay (Dean, 1938) which resulted in the addition of artificial fluoride to public water supplies. The incidence of tooth decay fell drastically in fluoridated communities as a result, leading to widespread adoption of public water fluoridation as a public health strategy.

However this intervention is highly contentious and convincing arguments can be made both for and against. When water fluoridation is considered safe and effective, I argue that public water supplies should be fluoridated. My argument will focus on how fluoridating water promotes accessibility and equity and aligns with John Mill’s harm principle by preventing harm to the public. To address controversy surrounding the issue I will also look at arguments against fluoridation focusing on its disregard for the autonomy of individuals and the contrasting opinion that mandatory fluoridation contradicts the harm principle.

Arguments for fluoridation:

My first argument for the fluoridation of water is that everyone in society should have equal opportunities for dental health improvements; water fluoridation achieves this as it promotes equity within society by making increased fluoride accessible to everyone. The principle of equity aims to ensure resources within society are distributed in a way that results in everyone their minimum requirements met (Reid & Robson, 2007). Public water fluoridation therefore creates equity for dental health improvements by making some level of preventative care available to everyone (Awofeso, 2012). This builds on the idea...

... middle of paper ...

...ividuals should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be subject to the adverse affects potentially associated with water fluoridation.

To conclude, any government policy that makes pacticular behaviours mandatory, such as the fluoridation of water will be controversial. Supposing water fluoridation is a safe and effective means of preventing tooth decay, I take the position arguing for flouridation. However, where controversy exists around its safety and effectiveness my position shifts in support of arguments against flouridation. Given this controversy does exist, and considerations there are other potentially less harmful ways fluoride can be administrated to the public, the I believe that benefits of artificial fluoridation are disproportionately less than the potiential risks, and that public water supplies should not be flouridated.