Fluoridation Contravenes Patients' Code Of Rights
Social issues researcher.
FLUORIDATION CONTRAVENES PATIENTS' CODE OF RIGHTS
The Minister of Health's current campaign to persuade local authorities to fluoridate public water supplies indicates that Mrs. King gives no credence to the Health and Disability Commissioner's Code of Patients' Rights, according to the Democrats' social issues researcher, David Tranter.
Under section 7(1) of the Code headed "Right to make an informed choice and give informed consent" it states, "Services may be provided to a consumer only if that consumer makes an informed choice AND GIVES INFORMED CONSENT" (my emphasis). While 7(1) goes on to make the exception "except where any enactment, or the common law, or any other provision of this code provides otherwise" the clear intention of this Right is further spelled out in 7(7) "Every consumer has the right to refuse services and to withdraw consent to services". The message is very clear that people cannot, under this code, be compelled to have a treatment they do not want. Mr. Tranter said.
The claim sometimes made by advocates of fluoridation that a precedent has been set for further additives because water supplies are often treated with chlorine is one of the least convincing red herrings seen for some time. Chlorine is employed to eliminate problems in the water itself but fluoridation is intended to treat the person consuming it and that is an entirely different matter.
Given the fluoridation lobby's incredible denials of the massive world-wide evidence against the practice, those on existing fluoridated water supplies would also be well advised to ask whether they have been provided with sufficient information to "make an informed choice and give informed consent" as the Patients' Code of Rights specifies.
The Democrat Party is completely opposed to fluoridation on the grounds of freedom of choice as endorsed by the provisions of the Patients' Code of Rights Mr. Tranter said. Annette King should stop denying the massive world-wide evidence against this ill-considered practice and give the public both sides of the story. Compulsory mass-medication of entire populations sets a very dangerous precedent which no thinking administration should even contemplate, he said.