The Health (Fluoridation) Act 1973 specifies that, “A water supply authority may and when required by the Secretary shall add fluoride to any public water supply under its control in the manner determined by the Secretary pursuant to this Act for dental health purposes” (1) – the Secretary being the Head of the Department of Health (2).
The legislation also makes clear that “No person has any right of action” against water supply authorities “in respect of anything done in regard to the fluoridation of a public water supply” within the scope of the Act (3).
Put simply, this means one person has the power to selectively order water supply authorities throughout the state of Victoria to fluoridate public water supplies to, ostensibly, treat citizens of Victoria for the disease of dental caries (4); whilst those water supply authorities are not legally accountable for their actions to any citizen of Victoria.
It seems the Victorian model inspired the Parliament of Queensland to take things one step further in 2008. Queensland’s Water Fluoridation Act 2008 states, “This Act binds all persons, including the State. However, nothing in this Act makes the State liable to be prosecuted for an offence” (5).
All this effort by promoters/enforcers of fluoridation to protect themselves from all possible future legal actions from the very citizens they claim to serve, begs a logical question – If fluoridation is totally “safe and effective,” as they vehemently and repeatedly insist, what are they so afraid of?
However, lately, we’ve been asking ourselves another question: What happens when a State’s mandatory Fluoridation Act directly contradicts the core tenets of another, more recent Act of Parliament?
For now, let’s stick with Victoria as a test case.
The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 makes two things abundantly clear: Firstly, that informed consent to treatment is an enshrined human right; and secondly, that no person or public authority has the power to override it:
“A person must not be subjected… to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent” (6).
“Nothing in this Charter gives a person, entity or public authority a right to limit (to a greater extent than is provided for in this Charter) or destroy the human rights of any person” (7).
As we have established in previous postings on the issue of informed consent, water fluoridation is most definitely advertised as a treatment for disease by its proponents (4), and that human scientific studies/experiments are ongoing as to potential negative outcomes of the non-consensual treatment (8) (9).
So, it seems we have a rather obvious contradiction in play here.
The Victorian Parliament, on the one hand, forces a treatment upon millions of individual Victorians by direct order of the Secretary (who is not obliged to obtain consent at any time) via the Fluoridation Act; yet, the same Parliament identifies – categorically – informed consent to treatment is a basic human right in the eyes of the law, stipulating that NO person, entity or public authority (including Parliament itself) can legally limit or destroy enshrined human rights.
If we were dealing with reasonable people running the fluoridation program, this legislative contradiction would be obvious and unacceptable. A reasonable person would acknowledge that many other developed nations do not fluoridate water and still maintain adequate dental health (10); that too many health questions remain unanswered to establish an adequate margin of safety to protect all Victorians (11); and that in light of these facts, draconian ‘police powers’ are unwarranted in overriding the human right of informed consent to treatment (12) when more logical alternatives exist (13).
But that’s rather the point, isn’t it? We are not dealing with reasonable people. Meanwhile, the fluoridation circus continues.