UK - Daily Echo letters

Take responsibility for own oral health
FIRSTLY let me say that living in Hamble my family would not be directly affected by the proposed introduction of fluoride to Southampton's water supply.
That aside I have been following the debate through the pages of the Daily Echo. My view is that indiscriminate, enforced mass medication through the water supply is fundamentally wrong - however well intended.
Two letters in Friday's Daily Echo, Dental Care Visits to Schools and What About the Cost of All This? sum up the argument for fluoridating tap water - cost.
It's cheaper to medicate everyone than providing selective dental care and support.
Michael Fielding points out that the dental deterioration is largely due to the consumption of sugary foods coupled with poor dental hygiene. So where does parental responsibility figure in this debate?
My particular concern is for the long-term. Who is to be held accountable in the decades ahead when the unforeseen consequences of this mass medication arise?
Will the dozen or so South Central SHA Board members be held to account for their decisions? (Come to think of it, how many of them will be affected by the fluoride in their tap water, I wonder?)
BRIAN PARKINS, Hamble, Southampton.

Leaves bad taste
IN his letter (Echo, June 24) Mr Bryan Spinner asks about the cost of fluoridation.
In information just supplied by the Consumer Council for Water there appears this interesting note: 'The cost of fluoridating the water supply is borne by the health service'. Would this, by any chance, be the same health service which has no spare money, is restricting vital drugs and closing invaluable hospital wards?
G PAYNE, Southampton.