04.15.07
Choice
One of the defining features of the middle class is its access to choice. Which school, college, car, job, mortgage provider, doctor or bank holiday weekend destination? It’s the Holy Grail of the middle class and they get very upset if someone tries to remove this sacred right to choose.
The choice brigade infects every single aspect of public policy where the strong lose nothing and the weak lose everything. It’s hardly any coincidence that both the PD’s and the Green’s are popular amongst the middle classes since they both believe in freedom of choice : though on different issues. The next election will see these parties go head to head with the winner holding the balance of power.
One area which illustrates the philosophy of the two parties in a rather interesting way is that of water fluoridation. The Green’s want to stop the addition of fluoride to public water supplies while the PD’s are strongly in favour of it. There are two views on fluoridation. The first, as Keith Redmond of the PD’s argues is that water fluoridation has been one of the most successful public health policies in history. Research by the Oral Health Services Centre at UCC showed that Irish children eat so many sweets, brush their teeth so infrequently and see a dentist so rarely that every tooth in their head should be rotten by the time they are 8 years old. By way of comparison, children in Northern Ireland where the water is not fluoridated have 50% more dental decay than their southern counterparts. This is the despite the fact that they brush their teeth and visit the dentist more frequently than those in the Republic. In the absence of fluoride in the water, their better habits are not enough to stop the rot.
Not everywhere in the Republic has fluoridated water since many people live in rural areas without proper treatment plants. The difference in the dental health of those who live in non-fluoridated and fluoridated areas is significant even well into adulthood. A national survey of the oral health status of adults in 1989-90 showed that in the 35 to 44-year-old age group, 53% of those living in a non-fluoridated area had at least 20 natural teeth; however, 71.3% of those living in a fluoridated area had the same number of teeth. It’s pretty convincing evidence of the rightness of the policy.
The Green’s argue that adding fluoride to the water was fair enough thirty years ago but isn’t necessary now that all toothpastes have added fluoride. In fact they point to the increase in dental fluorosis, spots on the surface of the teeth, as evidence of the downside of excessive fluoride in one’s system. The PD’s Redmond says it’s only a cosmetic condition and far better to have a few cases of fluorosis than nationwide tooth decay.
The Green’s former MEP Patricia McKenna refers to dodgy studies connecting fluoride with bone cancer which have been comprehensively dismissed by proper authorities. This sort of hysterical contribution is only a liability to anti-fluoridation arguments. Health spokesperson Gormley is more concerned that our total fluoride intake is unnecessarily high and the Committee on Health and Children on which he sits has agreed to conduct a nationwide survey on total fluoride intake. When that reports we’ll have a clearer picture.
In an ideal world the Green position is the correct one. In the Nirvana of Scandinavia, wouldn’t you know, the people’s teeth are perfect even though water is not fluoridated. But they don’t eat junk and they do brush their teeth properly, so not surprisingly they have low rates of dental decay. John Gormley argues this is the best strategy : educate people about dental hygiene rather than risk over-loading the population with fluoride.
The problem for Gormley is that we don’t live in an ideal world. How long would it take to change our dental hygiene habits and what damage would be done in the process? I’m not exactly sure how many children would lose their teeth, but I can guarantee you this much. Middle class people who can afford to take their children to a private dentist will be considerably better off than those working class people languishing on waiting lists for years. This is my objection to the” freedom of choice” argument for what Patricia McKenna calls “imposed mass medication”.
The freedom to choose how you manage your children’s dental hygiene should not be, but would boil down to a class issue. In the absence of an adequate public dental service, removing fluoride from public water supplies would damage poorer children more. In that respect it’s hardly any surprise that the PD’s are in favour of national fluoridation. It’s a cheaper way to solve a public health problem even if there are some minor non-monetary costs. Fluorisis being one and the “invasion of bodily integrity” being another according to the Greens. Fluoridation was introduced in the first place because there simply weren’t enough dentists to serve the population. Adding a chemical to our water is considerably cheaper and arguably more effective than the provision of an efficient public dental health service.
The science agrees with the PD position on fluoridation and so do I. That aside, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the PD’s prefer the option which sees the least money going into public health. It fits neatly into their overall policy of reducing income taxes and by extension investment in public services. By putting money directly into people’s pockets and allowing them to buy their own services rather than rely on the State it taps into the middle class obsession with choice.
Democracies are supposed to elect a central government which collects taxes and spend them on public services to the benefit of everyone. But the richer we get the more we like to choose how to spend our own money.
A creaking health service doesn’t matter if you can afford health insurance. A primary school system that gets only two thirds of its money from the government is irrelevant if the parents in well-off districts can raise the missing funds. A county council unable to invest in a water treatment plant doesn’t hurt too much if you can afford to buy bottled water. If you are really rich you can become a tax exile or avail of numerous tax avoidance schemes. Generous donations to charities of your choice assuage your conscience while you fund political parties focussed on creating good business environments and terrible public infrastructure.
It’s a great life if you have choices. If you are poor and have no choices, it’s not so good. When choice is the most important thing in your life, it’s easy to judge the poor for being poor. After all, they are poor because they made bad choices. You wouldn’t do that, now would you?
SK said,
April 15, 2007 at 11:25 pm
“the Green’s are popular amongst the middle classes since they… …believe in freedom of choice”
The believe in some freedom of choice. At the European elections their position was – you should have a choice on GM foods, vote for us so we can ban them!
Maybe I am narrow minded, but that seemed like they wanted to take the option of choice away from people.
simon said,
April 16, 2007 at 8:44 am
Also you acknowledge that the PD’s support fluoridiation but then try to paint it as if it is about lowering tax. Maybe it is simply because they think it is right?
eoin said,
April 16, 2007 at 11:36 am
That’s a belter of an article. You’re one of the few commentators who can make Irish politics comprehensible in human terms.
b said,
April 16, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Fluoridation is a scam. Its a handy way of getting rid of the waste from fertilizer manufacture. To call it scientific or necessitated for health is a lie.
Skangers will be skangers and medicating them for their own good is patronising. Next we will be neutering them for their own good. Its not that far of a step.
So let me get it straight. You don’t get to have rights if you don’t make the right choices. You don’t get the right to clean water if you don’t brush your teeth? Complete nonsense. Middle class nonsense. Fascism by the back door.
graham said,
April 16, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“Fluoridation is a scam. Its a handy way of getting rid of the waste from fertilizer manufacture. To call it scientific or necessitated for health is a lie.”
b, when you can present the evidence showing how fluoridation is so damaging, then perhaps I’ll take note. The simple fact of the matter is that all of the research points to fluoridation as a very successful way to reduce dental decay. There is no real evidence to suggest that the level of fluoridation in the water causes any significant level of damage. In the US, drinking water has been fluoridated in some areas for over 60 years. There has been an enormous amount of research carried out to investigate the effects of this process and there no real risk has been found. I’m content with that.
b said,
April 16, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Graham. Not to put too fine a point on it but you are talking bollocks.
In a democracy we would be allowed to vote on adding unregulated and unmeasured doses of “medicine” to the water. In Ireland it is added to the water by a 1961 ministerial order. There is no democratic way to remove the pollution from the water. It is a fascist era policy from a bygone age and needs to be consigned to the dustbin.
Flouridated water violates my human rights. But its OK because it has been done for a long time. Its a myth, hokum ,Pollyanna, nonsense, a fairy tale.
Flouridation like the notion that lead was “needed” in petrol is creating a market out of a myth. What do you expect from a government that has talking cows on TV saying that pizza is part of a healthy diet.
Cop on to yourself and assert your right to clean water. Get over the Irish habit of embracing Stockholm syndrome and stand up for your human right to clean water. We need a referendum. Water is that basic not that you woudl think so with the grandstanding in Galway by the bluff and bluster of that poxy minister.
Harney cleaned up the air in Dublin surely she can clean the water for the rest of us?
b said,
April 16, 2007 at 7:53 pm
b – by your logic Harney should have put cleaning up the air in Dublin to a vote as well.
Justin said,
April 16, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Too many b’s!
to the anony-b — once again: why not link to some evidence? so far you’ve just ranted and called people names.
(PS: great article, Sarah!)
Sarah said,
April 16, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I’ll ignore b cos the science doesn’t support his/her position.
On Simon’s point I do make clear that the PDs are right but that in the perfect (non-existent world, except Scandinavia) the Greens would be right. I just add in that’s it very handy that they come down on the side that is the cheapest. The consistent theme of all their policies is to starve investment in public infrastructure – so – private hospitals on public land, roads before rail, and of course, flouride before dentists.
thanks justin
Niall said,
April 16, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Jesus B, would you do us a favour and shut up. Try a Loose Change tribute page or something. It is one thing to suggest that maybe we would be better off without fluoridation, it is another thing entirely – and by another thing entirely, I mean a load of shite – to suggest that there is some sort of Evil Conspiracy to poison us all.
Here is an article from the BDJ, published in 2005:
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v199/n7s/full/4812863a.html
If I’m going to listen to anybody about the risks/benefits of fluoridation, then I’m going to go with the professionals because they are the ones who should be able to tell the difference between ‘myths’ and facts.
If you want untreated water, go to a lake.
b said,
April 16, 2007 at 11:27 pm
What science? Show me the evidence.
If we need flourine why isn’t the dosage regulated. Why do older people have bad teeth and extensive dental work. Its been around since 1961 so why don’t we have good teeth like the Scandinavians especially in the older population who when they were growing up had no sweets because imported sweets were banned. 45 years later we should be seeing the elimination of cavities by your reckoning.
Why do I need to wash my car in fluoridated water. Why do I need to wash the dishes and my clothes in this same water? Do my clothes need fluorine? What about the dog. Does he need fluoridated water too. And the shower? It makes precious little sense and is a waste of fluoride because so little water is drunk by humans for refreshment. What about the water on the garden? Do the flowers and plants need fluoridation too?
I am correct in saying that only a ministerial order will remove the flouride from the water. Look it up. Not the same as banning coal in Dublin. You didn’t need a ministerial order to do that. That was done by legislation in the normal fashion. Again. Look it up.
A ministerial order is different to legislating a change. Legislation can be changed. A ministerial order can only be ordered by a minister. No democracy required. It is at the sole discretion of the minister.
The Evil conspiracy that you refer to did exist. It was called the Church and our democracy was abdicated to the Church during the Mother and Child scandal in 1951. Again. Look it up.
Bollocks is not calling someone names. Bollocks is an old English word for nonsense.
ben said,
April 16, 2007 at 11:56 pm
And, again, what you’re being offered is science — scrupulous, peer-reviewed, scientific studies that involve research and evidence.
Your response is hysterical ranting and name-calling that doesn’t cite any reasonable authority. Calm down and use facts to support your position, that’s all it takes.
What’s wrong with washing your car with fluoride, anyway?
Justin said,
April 17, 2007 at 10:32 am
‘Why do older people have bad teeth and extensive dental work’ — because teeth wear down eventually due to use, and are not naturally replaced?
Niall said,
April 17, 2007 at 12:29 pm
What evidence? How about the evidence you just ignored! For Christ’s sake man, I just posted a link to a research survey on the issue. It gives a general overview of all the relevant research and provides references to these studies. It has been conducted by a professional and published in a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal. It explains the benefits of fluoridated water, and discusses issues relating to Ireland in particular. The most striking comparison made in the review was the comparison between the North and the Republic, in which we faired much better.
And the Evil Conspiracy who are forcing pollution upon is the Catholic Church? If I knew where you lived, I’d be calling those chaps in white coats. It is people like you who make me think twice about democracy.
Gerry said,
April 17, 2007 at 3:30 pm
anyway…. The Greens are really coming out of the closet as the anti-science nonsense peddlers I long suspected they were. This and the mis-step around MMR inoculation is going to start costing them votes amongst their core middle class constituency who actually read things. Their policies seem to be more based on instinct then research. MMR is medicine so bad. Flouride is a chemical so bad. I am not an advocate of GM but you wonder how well through out their objections are or is it simply wrong on principle. it’s a more complex issue than they seem to be giving credit to.
Their social welfare proposals are simply barmy. read them on their site. Without trying to sound like Maggie Thatcher, it’s a recipe for removing the incentive to work., How it is to be paid for who knows, perhaps on the flouride and MMR savings. the cure for the PDs might be worse then the illness.
graham said,
April 17, 2007 at 4:07 pm
As a scientist, I can tell you now b that all the evidence points to fluoridation of water as a positive thing. There is extensive research from the US and europe which shows without doubt that fluoridation to approx 1 part per million is a very effective means of significantly reducing tooth decay. Ireland has been a shinning example of this as the comparisons with Northern Ireland have revealed (As mentioned already).
I don’t know what research you have been reading b, but I suspect it is some of the clap trap that you can find all over the net from pressure groups and ‘environmentalists’ who take a lot of anecdotal evidence and try to extrapolate it to make wild and untrue claims. The Greens do the very same things here, with fluoridated water, GMOs and MMR. The goverment here do a dreadful job of educating the population when it comes to these issues and that is partly to blame, but the science, the real science tells us categorically that these things are safe and of great benefit.
You can give you opinion, you are entitled to it, but your arguments don’t hold up because the information you are basing your opinions on is flawed. For that reason I’m just going to ignore what you are spouting on about. Someone has already linked to real evidence in favour of fluoridation. You have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Either back up your claim, or stop spreading your lies. You are doing exactly what the Catholic Church specialised in for so long…scare mongering tactics to get your way, be it right or wrong.
Niall said,
April 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Honestly, I like the Greens. And as a minority partner in government, they could do a lot of good. But by God they have some freakin’ retarded ideas. You get the impression that their solution to the health crisis would be to invest in alternative “medicine”.
There seems to be a very strong element of New Age bullshit within the Green Party. They aren’t so much anti-science as pro-bullshit.
Sarah said,
April 17, 2007 at 6:20 pm
McKenna aside I think the Greens have some good candidates, but if they are just going to put FF back in power then what’s the bloody point?
b said,
April 17, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Graham.
In the 1970s Albatros fertilizers in New Ross gave at no cost the flouribe byproducts of fertiliser production to the county councils to make the disposal of flouride waste from fertiliser production go away.
I am 100% certain of this and I can provide witnesses. Your call.
graham said,
April 18, 2007 at 9:08 am
b,
It really doesn’t matter whether water is fluoridated with fertiliser byproducts, the simple fact is that many chemicals are byproducts of the production of something else. Using them is an efficient means of disposal and of course remember the mantra “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”. One mans waste is anothers raw material.
You seem to misunderstand chemistry and biology.
Fluoride is naturally found in water in many areas and in some areas the levels of fluoride in the water far excede the levels maintained by the Irish and other governments.
Now, you claimed that the whole issue of fluoridation was a scam and was damaging. You have still failed to provide that evidence. Whatever bone you have to pick with Albatros Fertilizers is really of no concern in this debate.
Mat said,
April 18, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Sorry, I am a bit thick and I don’t get your last line
“You wouldn’t do that, now would you?”
Wouldn’t do what? Please do explain, I feel like I’m not getting the punchline.
Sarah said,
April 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I am sure you are not thick Mat and I was being unclear.
I mean that the reader wouldn’t have made the bad choices that the poor person did. They could say, “well, the poor person should’ve stayed in school and done their Leaving Cert. I have studied hard and passed my exams and that’s why I have a good job and they don’t. I made better choices than the poor person. They are poor because they made bad choices. Why should I feel guilty for making good choices (or pay extra taxes to fund their mistakes) ?”
b said,
April 18, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Graham. Ignorance is not a point of view. Water flouridation has nothing to do with teeth and everything to do with industrial waste disposal.
There is no debating with an idiot. It just wastes my time.
Mat said,
April 18, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Thanks for clearing that up. It’s a bit like a point made by Alain De Botton in one his recent books (I think it was called Status Anxiety) about how, according to principles of social Darwinism, the poor are poor for that reasons you just mentioned. Personally I think this casts them in a rather wretched light, but there you have it. Wish it could be blamed on those damn Capitalists…
Justin said,
April 19, 2007 at 10:44 am
‘There is no debating with an idiot. It just wastes my time.’
oh, on that we agree then
b said,
April 19, 2007 at 10:54 pm
So we have established that sodium flouride a byproduct of chemical manufacture is more important than the actual water.
What a sick joke.
Especially as we don’t manufacture fertilizer any more in Ireland. We now import other peoples waste and dress it up as a medical benefit. It would be funny if it wasn’t so utterly stupid.