UK - Daily Echo letter - it's about choice

it's about choice
SELDOM have I seen a more patronising and insulting article than that by Olga Senior (In My View, July 27).
Regardless of where people have obtained their information on fluoridation, Ms Senior has completely missed the point. I will at least do her the courtesy of assuming that it is not deliberate. The issue is about choice. I pay a substantial amount, as a consumer, to have unadulterated water provided to my property. I do not expect anything else to be added to this, for whatever reason. (Any more than I expect to have anything added to other goods and services I pay for.)
I have recently retired after many years as a health professional and am aware of the arguments. Throughout my career l have also been aware of my duty of care to ensure that any medication, treatments or medical interventions are carried out only with informed consent (either writ ten or implied). This has not been, nor will be given for fluoridation of my water supply.
Does not the Mental Capacity Act allow that adults must be deemed to have the capacity to make decisions on their health care, unless it is proven that they do not have this capacity, and their decisions respected, regardless of whether health professionals consider this decision to be the wrong one?
If the purpose of the fluoridation is to save 36,000 teeth over 20 years, there are surely other ways to achieve this, not least by using the fluoridation budgets to help fund some school dentists. This might also assist with determining exactly why vulnerable children's teeth are in such poor condition.
It is not enough to say "because we say so" and it is too late afterwards to rectify it if it is wrong. I therefore remain firmly in the "no" camp and will continue to object.

MRS E NEWTON, Southampton.