GIS Mapping, Education and Research
Home   Store   Free GIS   Education   Free Shapefiles   Census   Weather   Energy   Climate Change   News   Maps   TOPO   Aerial   GPS   Learn GIS

DOWNLOAD SHAPEFILES: Canada FSA Postal - Zip Code - U.S. Waterbodies & Wetlands - Geographic Names - School Districts - Indian Federal Lands
Zip Code/Demographics - U.S. Streams, Rivers & Waterways - Tornadoes - Nuclear Facilities - Dams & Risk - 2013 Toxic Release Inventory TRI

FREE MAPCRUZIN UPDATES
Enter your e-mail



GIS Shapefile Store - for Beginners & Experienced GIS Users Alike. Geographic Names Information System, Nuclear Facilities, Zip Code Boundaries, School Districts, Indian & Federal Lands, Climate Change, Tornadoes, Dams - Create digital GIS maps in minutes.

Toxic Release Inventory TRI Shapefiles

Canada FSA Postal Code Shapefile

GNIS Shapefiles 2,000,000+ Points

Nuclear Energy Facilities in the U.S.

Download Zip Code with Demographics Shapefiles

Download U.S. Streams & Rivers Shapefiles

Download Water Body & Wetland Shapefiles

Download Zip Code Boundary Shapefiles

Download School District Shapefiles

Download Indian & Federal Land Shapefiles

Download Climate Change Shapefiles

Download Tornado Shapefiles

Download Dams & Risks Shapefiles

Follow Mapcruzin.com on Twitter Follow on Twitter

A Member of the
Reimagination Network

Didn't find what you are looking for? Email me and I'll find it for you.

Progressive Links

Federation of American Scientists

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

Union of Concerned Scientists

Alternet

Reader Supported News

Common Dreams

Truthout

Huffington Post

Media Matters

Think Progress

Grist Environmental News

Have a question or comment? Post them at the MapCruzin Blog.

Climate Shift Blog

MapCruzin Consulting
GIS and Google Maps Development, Website Creation and Hosting, Fast and Affordable.

GIS Tutorials

GIS Basics

GIS Terminology

Of Interest

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Maps

Climate Shift - The effects of climate shift on the future of planet earth and its inhabitants.

Right to Know or Left to Wonder?

Hazardscapes - Toxic and Nuclear Risks in your backyard.

War & Environment

Worst Case Scenarios: Terrorism & industrial chemicals.


Subscribe for Updates


The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation
Fair Use Statement

<-- Return To Right-To-Know or Left-To-Wonder

Source: Journal of the Canadian Dental Association

The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation

• Howard Cohen, BA, MA, PhD •
• David Locker, BDS, PhD •

© J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67(10):578-80

A statement concerning the ethics of water fluoridation was published in a recent issue of the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association.1 The arguments presented in that paper did not constitute what we would consider a complete and systematic account of the scientific and moral issues involved. It is our contention that water fluoridation, by the very nature of the way it is administered, engenders a number of moral dilemmas that do not admit to any easy solution. In this paper, we attempt to elucidate the particular problems posed by this public health initiative, according to the principles of bioethics.

The Role of Bioethics

Whether or not water fluoridation reduces dental caries in child populations has been subject to considerable debate.2,3 This debate is scientific rather than moral in character and revolves around the validity of the evidence concerning the benefits of adding fluoride to community water supplies. However, even if it were universally accepted that water fluoridation is beneficial and the scientific evidence incontrovertible, it would still have a moral dimension. This moral status arises in the application of water fluoridation in health care policy and public health practice. Attitudes toward public health initiatives are of necessity shaped by values. Bioethics is the study of the moral, social and political problems that arise from biology and the life sciences, and that involve human well-being.4 Of particular relevance are the core values of autonomy, beneficence and truthfulness.

Beneficence and Autonomy

Beneficence denotes the practice of good deeds and signifies an obligation to benefit others or seek their good. How this principle is put into practice depends on whose notion of good is applied. Health policy-makers and professionals, in advocating for the addition of fluoride to drinking water, are making moral decisions about the well-being of individuals and applying their own notions of good. If beneficent acts are to benefit the recipients of the actions, the basis for the goodness of the actions must lie in the values or preferences of autonomous, self-determining individuals. In practice, however, beneficent acts such as water fluoridation tend to be in conflict with autonomy. Since it is effectively impossible for individuals to opt out, fluoridation takes away the freedom to choose.

Advocates of water fluoridation argue that the benefits accruing to society through reductions in dental caries outweigh any harm to individual autonomy. Defenders of autonomy argue that fluoride is available from many sources, and so its benefits can be realized without violating the principle of autonomy. However, this presumes that everyone in society can access these alternative sources. The most vulnerable in society, it is countered, would surely miss out on the benefits of fluoride.1

Therefore, considering the benefit that accrues to disadvantaged groups in society, advocates of fluoridation contend that water supplies should be fluoridated on the grounds that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, can benefit. The claim here is that water fluoridation promotes social equity. This solution still leaves the conflict of beneficence and autonomy unresolved. In fact, there appears to be no escape from this conflict of values, which would exist even if water fluoridation involved benefits and no risks. However, water fluoridation does involve risks, in the form of increases in the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis. Moreover, as Coggon and Cooper5 indicate, those most likely to benefit from water fluoridation are not necessarily those placed at most risk. This complicates considerably any attempt to balance beneficence and autonomy.

Advocates of water fluoridation, in seeking to strike a balance between competing values, are attempting to reconcile irreconcilables: the demands of moral autonomy cannot be made compatible with what could be regarded as the involuntary medication of populations. This situation gives rise to the question of which values concerning the conflict between beneficence and autonomy should inform decision making with respect to water fluoridation: those of health professionals or those of the community?

Truthfulness

An assessment of the ethics of water fluoridation must also take into account the moral issues surrounding scientific inquiry in order for health professionals to be justified in advising or compelling others how to act. This aspect pertains to the principle of truthfulness, whereby health professionals are obligated to tell their patients the truth,6 for one cannot influence the way others act without first being justified in one’s own beliefs.

The conventional view is that policy-makers are presented with a clear moral choice when weighing the benefits and harms associated with water fluoridation. Historically this may have been the case. The original community trials of water fluoridation indicated a substantial effect.7,8 However, over the past 25 years there has been a marked reduction in rates of dental caries among children, such that the benefits of water fluoridation are no longer so clear. Although current studies indicate that water fluoridation continues to be beneficial, recent reviews have shown that the quality of the evidence provided by these studies is poor.9-11 In addition, studies that are more methodologically sound indicate that differences in rates of dental decay between optimally fluoridated and nonfluoridated child populations are small in absolute terms.12,13 Canadian studies of fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities provide little systematic evidence regarding the benefits to children of water fluoridation.14-17 Moreover, studies of the benefits to adults are largely absent,9 and there is little evidence that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.10

Truthfulness entails a proper appraisal of the benefits and risks. Currently, the benefits of water fluoridation are exaggerated by the use of misleading measures of effect such as percent reductions. The risks are minimized by the characterization of dental fluorosis as a “cosmetic” problem. Yet a study of the psychosocial impact of fluorosis found that “10 to 17 year olds were able to recognize very mild and mild fluorosis and register changes in satisfaction with the colour and appearance of the teeth.”18 The investigators also stated, “The most dramatic finding was that the strength of association of [fluorosis] score with psycho-behavioural impact was similar to that of overcrowding and overbite, both considered key occlusal traits driving the demand for orthodontic care.” In the absence of a full account of benefits and risks, communities cannot make a properly informed decision whether or not to fluoridate, and if so at what level, on the basis of their own values regarding the balance of benefits and risks.

In the absence of comprehensive, high-quality evidence with respect to the benefits and risks of water fluoridation, the moral status of advocacy for this practice is, at best, indeterminate, and could perhaps be considered immoral.

Conclusion

These scientific and moral issues must be addressed and resolved if policy and practice with respect to water fluoridation are to be considered ethically sound. Yet it is not clear that this work can be accomplished satisfactorily. The conventional view that the ethical dilemmas posed by water fluoridation can be resolved by balancing the benefits and harms actually begs the question, for it presumes that such a balance can be achieved. The preceding arguments indicate that this view needs to be replaced by a moral account showing an appreciation for the ineradicability of the conflict of values that water fluoridation engenders. They also raise the question of whose values should take precedence when decisions regarding water fluoridation are being made.

Ethically, it cannot be argued that past benefits, by themselves, justify continuing the practice of fluoridation. This position presumes the constancy of the environment in which policy decisions are made. Questions of public health policy are relative, not absolute, and different stages of human progress not only will have, but ought to have, different needs and different means of meeting those needs. Standards regarding the optimal level of fluoride in the water supply were developed on the basis of epidemiological data collected more than 50 years ago. There is a need for new guidelines for water fluoridation that are based on sound, up-to-date science and sound ethics. In this context, we would argue that sound ethics presupposes sound science.

Dr. Cohen has a PhD in political and moral philosophy from the University of Toronto. He is currently enrolled in the dental undergraduate program at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Locker is professor and director of the Community Dental Health Services Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of the Canadian Dental Association.

References

1. McNally M, Downie J. The ethics of water fluoridation. J Can Dent Assoc 2000; 66(11):592-3.

2. Diesendorf M, Colquhoun J, Spittle BJ, Everingham DN, Clutterbuck FW. New evidence on fluoridation. Australian N Z J Public Health 1997; 21(2):187-90.

3. Spencer AJ. New, or biased, evidence on water fluoridation? Australian N Z J Public Health 1998; 22(1):149-54.

4. Potter VR. Bioethics: Bridge to the Future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1971.

5. Coggon D, Cooper C. Fluoridation of water supplies: Debate on ethics must be informed by sound science. BMJ 1999; 319(7205):269-70.

6. Higgs R. On telling patients the truth. In: Lockwood M, editor. Moral dilemmas in modern medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985.

7. Burt B, Eklund S. Dentistry, dental practice and the community. 5th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1999.

8. Lewis DW, Banting DW. Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994; 22(3):153-8.

9. Locker D. Benefits and risks of water fluoridation. University of Toronto, Community Dental Health Services Research Unit; 1999.

10. McDonah M, Whiting P, Bradley M, Cooper J. A systematic review of public water fluoridation. University of York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2000.

11. Hawkins RJ, Leake JL, Adegbembo AO. Water fluoridation and the prevention of dental caries. J Can Dent Assoc 2000; 66(11):620-3.

12. Slade GD, Davies MJ, Spencer JA, Stewart JF. Association between exposure to fluoridated drinking water and dental caries experience among children in two Australian states. J Public Health Dent 1995; 55(4):218-28.

13. Heller KE, Eklund SA, Burt BA. Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. J Public Health Dent 1997; 57(3):136-43.

14. Clovis J, Hargreaves JA, Thompson GW. Caries prevalence and length of residency in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. Caries Res 1988; 22(5):311-5.

15. Ismail AI, Brodeur JM, Kavanagh M, Boisclair G, Tessier C, Picotte L. Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in students 11-17 years of age, in fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities in Quebec. Caries Res 1990; 24(4):290-7.

16. Ismail AI, Shoveller J, Langille D, MacInnis WA, McNally M. Should the drinking water of Truro, Nova Scotia be fluoridated? Water fluoridation in the 1990s. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993; 21(3):118-25.

17. Clark DC, Hann HJ, Williamson MF, Berkovitz J. Effects of lifelong consumption of fluoridated water or use of fluoride supplements on dental caries prevalence. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1995; 23(1):20-4.

18. Spencer AJ, Slade GD, Davies M. Water fluoridation in Australia. Community Dent Health 1996; 13(Suppl 2):27-37.

<-- Return To Right-To-Know or Left-To-Wonder

Didn't find what you are looking for? We've been online since 1996 and have created 1000's of pages. Search below and you may find just what you are looking for.



MapCruzin.com is an independent firm specializing in the publication of educational and research resources. We created the first U.S. based interactive toxic chemical facility maps on the internet in 1996 and we have been online ever since. Learn more about us and view some of our projects and services.

If you have data, GIS project or custom shapefile needs send me an email.

Contact Us

Report Broken Links

Subscribe for Updates

Advertise on MapCruzin

Follow on Facebook
News & Updates

Find: Maps, Shapefiles, GIS Software & More

MapCruzin Blog for updates, questions and answers

Mapcruzin Free GIS Tools, Resources, News and Maps

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Blog Updates

More Blog Updates

Downloads

Google Earth Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Maps
Lester Brown's Plan B 3.0
State GIS Shapefiles, Maps & Resources
GIS Shapefiles & Maps
GIS Programs, Tools & Resources
Free World Country & Regional Maps
GIS / GPS Careers and Job Positions
Disease Outbreak Maps
TOPO Maps
Extreme Weather & Disaster Maps
Free World Maps from the CIA Factbook
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ANWR Maps
Oil and Gas Maps
Africanized Honey Bees
Renewable Energy Potential Maps of the United States
Terrorism Maps
War Maps
Google Maps
Weather Maps
GPS Resources
Historical Maps of the World
Google Earth
Library of Congress American Memory Map Downloads
Toxic Chemical Pollution Maps
Climate Change Maps
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Maps
Census Shapefiles
World Maps

Issues

Environmental Justice
Data Sources
Greenwash & JunkScience
Statistical Resources
Wireless Dangers
Surviving Climate Change
Global Right-To-Know
Creating Living Economies
Books of Note
Toxic Klamath River
Federal Lands Maps
TRI Analysis
TRI Webmaps
EnviroRisk Map Network
Community-Based Research
Right-To-Know or Left to Wonder?
Chemical Industry Archives
21st Century Warfare
Biotechnology
Nanotechnology
Globalization/Democracy
National Parks and Public Lands
Trade Secrets/Toxic Deception
GIS Books
Our Projects
Other Projects
1999 Archive Environews
Environmental Books
Environmental Links
Redwood Coast Information
Recycle, Salvage, Reuse

Resources
Shapefile Store
Free GIS Software
Free Map Downloads
Free Shapefiles
Free Remote Sensing
Free Topo Maps
Free GIS Tutorial
Free GPS
ToxicRisk.com
ClimateShift.com
Maptivist.com

About MapCruzin - Cookies, Privacy, Fair Use and Disclaimer - Advertise on MapCruzin.com

Website development and hosting provided by Michael Meuser

Copyright © 1996 - 2017 Michael Meuser, All Rights Reserved
MapCruzin is a Pop-Up Free Website -- Best Viewed With ANY Browser