‘Paternalism’ part of fluoride decision

Tecumseh town council, sometime soon you will vote on a motion that will in effect usurp my authority over my personal health care. Your decision will determine whether or not I will be indefinitely subjected to mandatory medication: medication that I neither need nor want and about which I have legitimate concerns.

My wishes, however, are irrelevant as the policy-makers in this region have deemed that you are much more qualified than I am to make decisions over my health care. While this is offensive and insulting, history reminds me that as a woman I should not be surprised. It may be 2019, but the culture of paternalism persists and continues to be a default position.

It is paternalism that seeks to stifle rational, differing opinion by categorizing it as motived by “fear.” (What woman hasn’t heard that one before.)

It is paternalism that bases its decisions on research studies that support the political objective, while ignoring research studies that support the opposite position.

It is paternalism that justifies implementation of a draconian policy because it is the “most economical.” And it is paternalism that cavalierly recommends using the water supply as a means to indefinitely impose mandatory medication on a whole population.

I respectfully suggest that the delivery of fluoride through the drinking water supply is unethical and irresponsible. I therefore oppose the proposed addition of fluoride to the water supply for the Town of Tecumseh and I protest this unwarranted attempt to subjugate my autonomy and right of informed consent in my health-care decisions.

Robina Millar Athavale, Tecumseh