.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

UK - Daily Echo - In my view

There is a solution...
IN my view and that of many in the Labour party in New Forest East is that the fluoride debate has gone on for long enough and a solution must be found that is acceptable to the majority.
Firstly I want to congratulate Julian Lewis MP, Cllr David Harrison and others involved, on their efforts to seek a review of the Strategic Health Authority decision.
The SHA has ploughed ahead, paying little regard to the overwhelming lack of support for fluoride to be added to the water supply, which is unnecessary mass medication, leaving many people very concerned. The SHA has clearly not won the argument and the support of the people it is supposed to care for, on this matter.
I would like to propose a solution which is cost effective and would suit all parties, including the SHA, which does not require the imposition of fluoride on people in Totton and Southampton against the will of the majority.
Why will the SHA not work with Hampshire and Southampton councils in education and children's services, to provide education on dental care, as already happens at children's centres and Sure Starts, and rapidly expand the programme to every setting where children (and parents) attend?
The most obvious step is to provide dental care and monitoring in our nurseries and schools. There is no need for a nurse in every school, but a programme of regular visits where education, monitoring and distribution of dental care products can occur.
A programme of dental care education visits and monitoring would be welcomed by teachers and most parents. In secondary schools there are health visitors educating pupils on contraception, smoking, drugs and other health matters,, alongside mass immunisation programmes 'such as BCG inoculations and more recently inoculation against cervical cancer. Why cannot the SHA spend its resources on enough dental health professionals to educate our children (and some parents) from the earliest years.
The above approach would be less expensive and a more sustainable way for the future, than pouring money down the drain, for fluoridation equipment, equipment maintenance and monitoring, fluoride supplies and of course legal advice to try to force this plan through.
There is always the danger of the overdosing of the water supply, which would be a disaster for all, whereas if pupils and parents, just will not learn from dental education, freely provided, then all they will individually suffer is bad teeth, instead of everybody being fluoridated from cradle to grave.
Dental health education is the responsibility of the SHA and parents. Any parent not wishing to have fluoride for their children's teeth, need only avoid giving fluoridated tap water for drinking and fluoridated toothpaste to their children.
Surely, active targeted education on dental care allows the children to make a choice about looking after their teeth, and in time their own children's teeth, even if a few parents could not care less.
Many congratulations to all who have scrutinised and questioned the SHA's unpopular proposal and I hope you can support the education alternative proposed.
We do not need expensive legal hearings, using NHS funds. What Is needed is an agreed way forward for our children's dental health.
Come on SHA consider the alternative proposal as set out above.


Post a Comment

<< Home