Worse? – (PIP #40)

By Louise Peloquin

     Delineating the role of the State in public health issues has fueled debate for decades.

L’Etoile April 2, 1957

Statism worse than fluoridation

Some time ago, while the battle about fluoridation was in full swing, a Chicago professional wrote to the Richmond Virginia “News Leader” in favor of the measure. He agreed with the fact that dental hygiene was a personal matter and deplored government intervention into citizens’ private lives. However, he added, health is in the national interest and one does not have the right to “waste” one’s health either by carelessness or by ignorance. And because parents neglect their children’s dental health, the State must take care of it.

     This correspondent’s reasoning reminds us of the case of Winston Smith, the miserable protagonist in George Orwell’s brutal novel “1984.” The State requires that Smith, whose name bears the number 6079, must get out of bed each morning and perform calisthenics in front of the television screen. When Smith gets up in the chill of the morning, and, legs straight, fails to touch his toes, the physical education director on the screen scolds him in the name of the State. The State certifies that Smith deliberately refuses to take care of his health. Therefore, the State must take care of it.

     The more we consider the fluoridation proposition, the more we think of Smith 6079 obeying his masters in front of the television screen because obligatory fluoridation is a type of totalitarian thesis.

     Critics have asked the wrong questions concerning fluoridation and thus, have missed the real objectives. The problem is not discovering whether or not doctors and dentists agree on the physiological effects of fluoridation. The question is determining whether or not adding fluoride to the water is a government prerogative for improving public health. We do not believe so.

     According to the reasoning of the correspondent from Chicago and of the fervent proponents of fluoridation, any measure capable of improving public health should be enacted into law.

     The sun is vivifying. Therefore we should open clinics equipped with electric lamps for people to use. Orange juice contains precious vitamins. Therefore we should oblige all citizens to drink at least four ounces of orange juice a day with a fine for infringing this rule. 

     Those who lead sedentary lives have a tendency to develop a paunch. This is dangerous, at least just as dangerous as cavities, because too much fat harms the heart and makes the person prone to illness.

     Health is a national interest. Hence, if it is fair for the State to oblige each child to absorb fluoride in order to prevent cavities, it should be equally fair for the State to oblige every editorialist to perform calisthenics. Smith 6079, bend over, lower, lower!

     A cavity is not a public health problem inasmuch as we have perceived public health for centuries. A cavity is neither dangerous nor is it a contagious disease. It does not harm one’s neighbor. It is not a source of epidemics. At worst, a cavity can become a source of infection. However, if it is the government’s duty to stop all sources of infection, we should incorporate the term “Kleenex” into the Constitution and exchange the national flag for an immense Band-Aid!

     May government leaders reflect upon all of this. Water fluoridation does not have anything to do with water purification or with the prevention of infectious diseases. It is a voluntary act of the omnipotent State inflicted upon the Winston Smiths as if by a well-intentioned big brother!

     Let the technicians argue about the tooth stains caused by fluoridation. This is of no importance. But the idea of State involvement in a measure such as obligatory fluoridation makes us shudder. (1)

****

1) Translation by Louise Peloquin.