Global water fluoridation: what is holding us back?

Artificial water fluoridation was introduced more than 60 y ago as a public health intervention to control dental caries. Despite wide recommendations for its use from the World Health Organization (WHO) and studies showing the benefits of water fluoridation, many countries have opted out. Currently, only 25 countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia have schemes for artificial water fluoridation. The issues faced in efforts to promote the global uptake of water fluoridation and the factors that affect the decision to implement it are unique in both developed and developing countries and must be explored. This article addresses the benefits and challenges of artificial water fluoridation. Further, it tackles the complexities faced with uptake of water fluoridation globally, such as ethical and political controversies and the use of alternative fluoride therapies. Potential future strategies to encourage the uptake of artificial water fluoridation are also discussed.

Is New Zealand water fluoridation justified?

Public health programmes extend beyond the clinical context and focus on measures that affect the lives of large subgroups or the population as a whole. An example of this is community water fluoridation (CWF), the altering of fluoride levels in the water supply with the aim of preventing the initiation and slowing the progression of dental caries lesions for the benefit of entire populations. Despite the unfeasibility of randomised controlled trials of CWF, a large volume of evidence is available on the topic. However, CWF remains a polarising and keenly contested issue. CWF is also an intervention where it is difficult to provide everyone affected with a choice. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is an independent body that examines and reports on ethical questions, and they have provided a useful ethical framework for considering CWF via the 'stewardship' model. This commentary aims to discuss each of the public health aims and how they can be applied and weighed to reach a justified position about CWF.

Cluster randomization and political philosophy

In this paper, I will argue that, while the ethical issues raised by cluster randomization can be challenging, they are not new. My thesis divides neatly into two parts. In the first, easier part I argue that many of the ethical challenges posed by cluster randomized human subjects research are clearly present in other types of human subjects research, and so are not novel. In the second, more difficult part I discuss the thorniest ethical challenge for cluster randomized research--cases where consent is genuinely impractical to obtain. I argue that once again these cases require no new analytic insight; instead, we should look to political philosophy for guidance. In other words, the most serious ethical problem that arises in cluster randomized research also arises in political philosophy.

[The ethical dilemma of water fluoridation]

Dental caries remains a worldwide public health problem because of its magnitude and impact on affected people's quality of life. Among preventive strategies, water fluoridation is one of the most important, but its value still remains uncertain after more than a half century of its use. The aim of this study is to analyse some of the ethical arguments for and against water fluoridation and to determine if empirical data allow to decide if there are correct policies from a bioethical perspective. Autonomy, compulsory medication (mass medication), precautionary principle, justice in health care and ethics of protection are discussed. It is concluded that fluoridation is beneficial and that there is no ethical reason to oppose it, based on a specific kind of ethics developed to analyse and clarify complex public health issues.

Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review

The aim of this paper was to critically review the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries. Original articles and reviews published in English language from January 2001 to June 2006 were selected through MEDLINE database. Other sources were taken from the references of the selected papers. For the past 50 years community water fluoridation has been considered the milestone of caries prevention and as one of the major public health measures of the 20th century. However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.

Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights

Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing of silicofluorides, constitutes unlawful medical research. It is banned in most of Europe; European Union human rights legislation makes it illegal. Silicofluorides have never been submitted to the U.S. FDA for approval as medicines. The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics, including the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. The police power of the State has been used in the United States to override health concerns, with the support of the courts, which have given deference to health authorities.