I strongly agree with Elizabeth McDonagh's comments about Referenda and i know that i am not alone. Its ok to make a statement and generate publicity by demonstrating the strength of public opinon against fluoridation but this has already been done countless times across the UK. A referendum fails to tackle the central fact that mass medication is the imposition of medication on a group or even an individual without their consent. This would be the case even if it was "safe and effective" and actually worked. The idea of fluoridation ignores and punishes those who in a democracy should not only have a right to refuse and vote against an idea but also to refuse medical treatment.except possibly in a case where an individual becomes a danger to others. As far as i am aware, tooth decay is not contagious.
Compulsory Fluoridation is a betrayal of democracy for which our parents and grand parents fought in world wars to uphold. Flawed it may be but its probably the best of the options currently available and it should therefore be strengthened rather than weakened. . Even now our sons and daughters are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to uphold and protect the principles and freedoms of democracy yet seemingly our own government does not see fit to allow its own citizens here in the UK to experience the benefits.
Not one single person should be forced to take fluoride without their individual consent, not even by a doctor and very certainly not by an elected MP or Government Minister with absolutely no medical qualifications and in many cases, little evidence of common sense or self preservation as recent events have demonstrated.. If i want to purchase a house i go to an estate agent not a politician, if i want to go on Holiday i visit a travel agent not an MP and if i want a medical examination or a prescription i visit a doctor and certainly not a government minister who one would expect to be busy with affairs of state or indeed a personal expenses claim. Even then I reserve the right to consider a doctors opinion and if i wish, refuse to accept the proffered medidation. A referendum on fluoride would give credibility to fluoride when we all know there is none and this would merely act as a distraction from the central issue.
The judicial review is a useful and important way of highlighting the illegality, and the lack of democracy and genuine consultation processes of fluoridation, but this should not even be necessary in a democracy just as unsafe and ineffective or uneconomic practices should not be used by a Government agency or public water supplier. It is high time that our elected representatives and their agents, realised that they are spending and in many cases, wasting OUR time and OUR money and that we as a nation can no longer afford this. Politicians are elected by all of us who vote, to carry our our wishes and they constantly must be reminded that they are not ordained by God. If you have a toothache and I am forced to take a painkiller, it not only sets a precedent for even more tampering with what should be pure and unadulterated water, it will not help your toothache and may even make me ill. Therefore we must be prepared to say NO to fluoride at the local and National level, not only online but also in the media, the courts of law, and the ballot box.