Ignore us at your peril!
WITH the fiuoridation issue refusing to go away and other parts of the country reconsidering plans to fluoridate water supplies in the light of the judicial review, isn't it about time health chiefs had a major rethink about this overwhelmingly unpopular scheme?
How much more NHS money will be wasted in the ensuing court case that could instead be put to good use in funding more targeted ways of tackling tooth decay?
Unfortunately, the whole issue has become a battle involving health authorities, politicians, dentists, water companies, city councillors and various other "authorities" all of whom appear to be unconcerned that there is simply no local support for the scheme as shown by the 72 per cent of respondents who took the trouble to inform the SHA that they do not want fluoridated water and the 15,300 people who signed a Downing Street petition.
Clearly, many local people have thought deeply about this issue and have realised that adding this chemical | to the water is not something they want j for themselves or their city. The exercise of choice is an important aspect of taking care of our own health and well-being and of making people feel that they are part of an inclusive society that listens to its members through its local and national democratic systems.
Do we want a society where people feel it is pointless to be part of this system? Do we really want people to think that it is not worth responding to a consultation or not worth voting because whatever happens, the powers that be do not consider the ordinary person to be worth listening to? Do we want a society that will not challenge unethical policies because the authorities will force these through regardless?
The campaign to stop water fiuoridation has attracted old and young, political and non-political, mothers of young children, people with :
health problems, students, academics, environmentalists, health professionals and people from outside the area who feel that a dangerous precedent will be set if this goes ahead. It represents a cross-section of society and provides a collective voice for those who do not want this scheme imposed on them individually or as a region.
The campaign has not been undermined by the patronising attitude of the SHA who seem to think that ordinary citizens do not have a valid viewpoint and has labelled those who object to their water being medicated as "conspiracy theorists" or not informed or intelligent enough to do their own research.
Dissenters have been ignored, insulted and patronised with one city councillor calling those who object to fiuoridation "rather strange" at the city council vote last November.
My own MP, Alan Whitehead, has not responded to any of my letters with an individual reply just a photocopied standard letter that others too have received. What a way to treat a constituent and former supporter.
The judge dealing with the judicial review has said that the consultation process raises important issues of law but whatever the judge decides, the fight to keep the region's water fluoride free will continue.
Opposition won't go away and there will be new challenges to Southampton City Council and the SHA. Unelected health authorities, water companies, pro fluoride councillors and politicians ignore us at your peril.
(photo of Ann Richards)
17 Sept 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment