Fluoridation: A question of consent

FFHBG_Doctor14598525_s

“Medical treatment is for physicians to give with our consent. By voting NO on Measure P, Healdsburg citizens will give themselves clean water again. They can then decide whether they and their children should use fluoride.”

EDITOR: As a cofounder of the Sonoma County Water Coalition and as a member of the Sonoma County Health Services’ Fluoridation Advisory Committee, I was distressed to read the polarizing editorial on water fluoridation (“Defending Healdsburg’s dental health,” Oct 8).

There is no evidence that children’s teeth in fluoridated Healdsburg are any better than children’s teeth elsewhere in non-fluoridated Sonoma County. All the solid peer-reviewed science now indicates that dental health correlates more closely to family income and access to dental care than to drinking fluoridated water. Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control say that fluoride works when applied topically to tooth surfaces, not internally.

By voting no on Measure P, Healdsburg citizens will give themselves clean water again. They can then decide whether they and their children should use fluoridated toothpaste or any of the many other sources of fluoride that were not available 62 years ago when Healdsburg began fluoridating its drinking water. They will have that choice.

Medical treatment is for physicians to give with our consent. It’s not the job of our elected representatives or for our public health officials to medicate anyone without his or her own individual informed consent.

STEPHEN FULLER-ROWELL

Santa Rosa

Letter to the Editor at The Press Democrat

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail