Dear Fellow Nebraskans,
I write to you today with hope for medical freedom, which is burdened by the weight of an issue that affects us all, yet remains largely unaddressed in Nebraska: water fluoridation. Senator Ben Hansen’s bill LB1387 has recently been brought to my attention, and I’ve been asked for my opinion and comments. As a dentist, it may seem counterintuitive for me to advocate against a practice that has long been touted as a triumph of public health. However, I implore you to consider the deeper implications of medicating an entire population without their explicit consent.
Water fluoridation, once heralded as a panacea for dental caries, has now become a contentious topic fraught with ethical dilemmas. While its proponents tout its benefits in preventing tooth decay, the reality is far more sinister and complex. Fluoride is not without its risks, and the indiscriminate dosing of an entire community raises serious concerns about individual autonomy and medical ethics.
Let us not forget that fluoride is indeed a medication – one that is being administered without the oversight of a medical professional, without regard for individual medical histories or susceptibility to adverse effects. The notion that we, as a society, have the right to medicate our citizens without their explicit consent is a dangerous precedent that undermines the very principles of medical ethics and personal autonomy.
Furthermore, the scientific consensus on the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation is far from unanimous. Numerous studies have raised questions about potential health risks associated with fluoride exposure, including skeletal/dental fluorosis, neurological effects, nephrological effects, thyroid effects, and even an increased risk of certain cancers. Are we willing to gamble with the health of our citizens in the name of dental health?
But perhaps the most egregious aspect of water fluoridation is the lack of choice afforded to the individual. In what other context would we deem it acceptable to force medication upon an entire population, without their consent or even their knowledge? The very notion flies in the face of bodily autonomy principles and basic human rights.
Sadly, the burden to remove fluoride from the water supply disproportionately falls on families who may not have the means to do so. While some affluent households may opt for expensive water filtration systems or purchase bottled water, these options are often financially out of reach for many families. Consequently, those already struggling to make ends meet are left with no choice but to bear the brunt of fluoride exposure, potentially exacerbating existing health disparities. This inequity further underscores the injustice inherent in mandating a medical intervention that lacks individual consent and places an undue burden on the most vulnerable members of our community.
Some may argue that water fluoridation is a necessary public health measure, essential for combating dental caries and promoting oral health. But at what cost? Are we willing to sacrifice our fundamental rights and freedoms on the altar of shaky dental benefits? I, for one, refuse to accept this overreach of government.
Furthermore, the potential liability that a city faces for allowing the practice of water fluoridation cannot be understated, particularly in light of ongoing legal challenges such as the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) vs. EPA lawsuit. As this lawsuit unfolds, cities across the nation must confront the possibility of being held accountable for the adverse health effects linked to fluoride exposure. Should the court rule in favor of FAN, cities that continue to fluoridate their water supply may find themselves embroiled in costly legal battles, facing compensation claims from affected individuals and families. Moreover, the precedent set by such litigation could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits, further amplifying the financial and reputational risks for municipalities. In the face of mounting evidence and legal scrutiny, cities must carefully consider the potential consequences of perpetuating a practice that not only lacks unanimous scientific support but also exposes them to significant legal liabilities.
As advocates for individual autonomy and informed consent, it is imperative that we afford medical and dental professionals the latitude to properly dose and administer fluoride to individuals they believe would benefit from it. This avenue allows for personalized care and ensures that treatment decisions are made in the best interest of the patient, taking into account their unique medical history and circumstances. However, it must be underscored that with this privilege comes great responsibility. Medical and dental professionals must exercise due diligence in assessing the risks and benefits of fluoride treatment, providing comprehensive information to patients, and obtaining their informed consent prior to initiating any intervention. Furthermore, these professionals must be prepared to face scrutiny and potential liability should adverse medical problems arise as a result of fluoride administration. The fundamental principle remains unchanged: the decision to take a medication should always rest with the patient, under the supervision and guidance of their trusted medical provider.
In closing, I urge you to join me in calling for an end to mass medication through public water fluoridation in the state of Nebraska. While we should not allow governmental entities to meddle in our individual medical decisions, I believe Senator Ben Hansen’s bill LB1387 is a critical step in the right direction. Let us stand together in defense of individual autonomy, medical ethics, and the principles of a strong Republic made up of many unique individuals. Our health – and our freedom – depend on it.
Sincerely,
Trino Nuño DDS
