UK - Southampton Fluoride decision is looming for Hampshire
Fluoride decision is looming for Hampshire
7:10am Sunday 22nd February 2009
By Jon Reeve »
THEY are the 12 people entrusted with deciding on one of the most divisive health issues to face Hampshire in generations.
A finance specialist, a retired Vodafone director, an ex-midwife and the former head of Hampshire’s social services are among those who must pick their way through the complex arguments surrounding controversial plans to improve Southampton’s poor dental health.
None of South Central Strategic Health Authority’s (SHA) board members has a specific background in dentistry, yet they must make up their minds on whether parts of the city’s water should be fluoridated.
On Thursday, the 12 will convene at a special meeting at Southampton’s St Mary’s Stadium, to consider plans to add the chemical to the water supply of nearly 200,000 county residents.
It marks the culmination of a fiercely contested three-month consultation in which thousands of people had their say as campaigners on both sides of the debate sought to prove their cases.
Southampton City Primary Care Trust, which proposed the scheme, says it will reduce tooth decay amongst the city’s children.
But opposition campaigners say fluoride brings dangerous side effects, and is an unethical form of massmedication.
More than 10,000 people submitted formal responses to the consultation, and another 2,000 were surveyed through an independent phone poll, while councillors across Hampshire gave their views.
But at the board meeting – the first to be held outside the authority’s Newbury headquarters and the only time it has debated just one item – the issue will come down to a simple poll of these 12 members of the panel.
Some of the board are full-time employees of the authority who have purely medical and public health backgrounds, while others bring their experiences from other walks of life to the table.
If seven or more vote one way, then their views will be carried and work will either begin towards introducing fluoride, or the plans will be abandoned.
If the vote is tied, then chairman Dr Geoffrey Harris – a former medical research scientist – will have the casting say.
“In terms of the legislation, the final decision rests with the SHA and that’s basically it – the decision doesn’t get reviewed by the Department of Health,” explained SHA campaigns manager, Kevin McNamara.
“But there is always recourse through the courts, and that’s a possibility that some people have mentioned.”
Should the board vote in favour of fluoridation then, subject to any legal challenge, the real work would begin.
The SHA says it has no firm idea when fluoride would actually start being added to tap water, or how much the scheme will ultimately cost.
Although the scheme has been considered in theory, including estimated costs, detailed preparation has not yet begun.
“None of that work has taken place or really been discussed because we didn’t want people to think we had premeditated the decision, nor do we want to waste that time if it’s not going ahead,” said Mr McNamara.
“There’s a significant amount of work that would have to be done.
“A lot of it would rest on discussions with the water company and getting the legal framework set up between them and the NHS.”
7:10am Sunday 22nd February 2009
By Jon Reeve »
THEY are the 12 people entrusted with deciding on one of the most divisive health issues to face Hampshire in generations.
A finance specialist, a retired Vodafone director, an ex-midwife and the former head of Hampshire’s social services are among those who must pick their way through the complex arguments surrounding controversial plans to improve Southampton’s poor dental health.
None of South Central Strategic Health Authority’s (SHA) board members has a specific background in dentistry, yet they must make up their minds on whether parts of the city’s water should be fluoridated.
On Thursday, the 12 will convene at a special meeting at Southampton’s St Mary’s Stadium, to consider plans to add the chemical to the water supply of nearly 200,000 county residents.
It marks the culmination of a fiercely contested three-month consultation in which thousands of people had their say as campaigners on both sides of the debate sought to prove their cases.
Southampton City Primary Care Trust, which proposed the scheme, says it will reduce tooth decay amongst the city’s children.
But opposition campaigners say fluoride brings dangerous side effects, and is an unethical form of massmedication.
More than 10,000 people submitted formal responses to the consultation, and another 2,000 were surveyed through an independent phone poll, while councillors across Hampshire gave their views.
But at the board meeting – the first to be held outside the authority’s Newbury headquarters and the only time it has debated just one item – the issue will come down to a simple poll of these 12 members of the panel.
Some of the board are full-time employees of the authority who have purely medical and public health backgrounds, while others bring their experiences from other walks of life to the table.
If seven or more vote one way, then their views will be carried and work will either begin towards introducing fluoride, or the plans will be abandoned.
If the vote is tied, then chairman Dr Geoffrey Harris – a former medical research scientist – will have the casting say.
“In terms of the legislation, the final decision rests with the SHA and that’s basically it – the decision doesn’t get reviewed by the Department of Health,” explained SHA campaigns manager, Kevin McNamara.
“But there is always recourse through the courts, and that’s a possibility that some people have mentioned.”
Should the board vote in favour of fluoridation then, subject to any legal challenge, the real work would begin.
The SHA says it has no firm idea when fluoride would actually start being added to tap water, or how much the scheme will ultimately cost.
Although the scheme has been considered in theory, including estimated costs, detailed preparation has not yet begun.
“None of that work has taken place or really been discussed because we didn’t want people to think we had premeditated the decision, nor do we want to waste that time if it’s not going ahead,” said Mr McNamara.
“There’s a significant amount of work that would have to be done.
“A lot of it would rest on discussions with the water company and getting the legal framework set up between them and the NHS.”
posted by Bill at
10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home