Stakeholder Assessment of Legislation to Place Fluoride in Water

Policy

Assessment of a Fluoridation Policy from the Perspective of Different Stakeholders

When examining the different potential; perspectives of different stakeholders, it is important to note that many of the concerns and issues are not mutually exclusive to the different stakeholders and different perspectives. The following matrix presents some of the potential views of different stakeholders from different perspectives.

Stakeholders:

Possible perspectives held by these stakeholders:

Conservative

Liberal

Legal

Religious

Ethical

Cultural

Societal

Economic

Legislators

Legislation is needed to enforce what has been a voluntary measure in the past, as many communities have not yet adopted the practice. The benefits outweigh the cost, and it is cost effective to add fluoride to the water; saving between $8 and $49 for each $1 spent (CDC, 2013).

Individual freedoms should be protected; placing fluoride in the water forces all those who use the water to consume the fluoride, without any choice or autonomy, and possibly without their knowledge.

There may be concern for the potential of a legal challenge to legislation forcing fluoridation from the opponents. Other legislation, such as Obamacare has faced legal challenges. There may be concerns that it may be seen as unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, undermining personal liberty in terms of freedom of choice over bodily health and care (Strong, 1967). However, this is not complete liberty and reasonable regulation is allowed (Strong, 1967)

The act may be seen as breaching the first amendment where there is no law to be passed which breaches the free exercise of religion. Some religions believe that there should not be interference, for example the Christian Science Church, where there is meant to be sole reliance on God for health (Strong, 1967). Claims for this have failed in the past but it does not prevent the potential belief by some in the legislature.

It is ethical to impose a measure that will provide a greater benefit than the associated cost, and fluoridation will create significant benefits.

Legislators to pass bills they believe their electorate will support, if they pass unpopular legislation they are unlikely to be elected in the following terms. Legislators must believe it is in the benefits of their electorate and has sufficient support to pass the bill, or that if it is not popular, it will not be sufficiently unpopular to result in failure to be re-elected.

Society needs to be protected form itself, especially as the state is bearing the cost of bad choices through healthcare costs. Imposing fluoridation will be a benefit to society.

Legislator consider budgets, the CDC has calculated that fluoridated water may save between $8 and $49 for each dollar spent, so it is an effective use of funds (CDC, 2013).

Utility Boards (Water)

Costs should not be incurred unless they are required by legislation, as seen in the views of Friedman (Chyssides & Kaler, 1998). If legislation is passed then the firm will need to comply and fluoridate water.