Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Letter to Editor
August 12, 1954
The Key West Citizen
Key West, Monroe County, Florida
What is this article about?
A letter to the editor of The Citizen opposes fluoridating Key West's drinking water, arguing it constitutes unwise compulsory medication violating constitutional rights, unlike voluntary vaccinations. It references a prior letter, suggests individual administration, and notes San Diego's recent vote against it after 1.5 years.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
PEOPLE'S FORUM
The Citizen welcomes expressions of the views of its readers, but the editor reserves the right to delete any items which are considered libelous or unwarranted. The writers should be fair and confine the letters to 200 words and write on one side of the paper only. Signature of the writer must accompany the letters and will be published unless requested otherwise.
NO PARALLEL
Editor, The Citizen:
In a letter on the subject of fluoridation, published in your "People's Forum" a few days ago, and signed "H. V. B.," the writer attempts to show that "Jenner's experiments in vaccination, and Pasteur's developments of inoculation," would support the belief that benefits are also to be derived from fluoride in our drinking water.
There is no parallel in this case, "H. V. B."
We have a situation here where those proposing to medicate our water supply say, in substance - handing a pill to every individual in the community, both old and young, with literally thousands of differing physical systems— "Here, take this, it's good for the children's teeth."
Wouldn't you say that is unwise compulsory medicine —when forced to take it in every drink of water when there is no contagious epidemic to combat.
If we are to commence the process of clipping away the Constitutional rights of Citizens. we have started down a side road which deviates from the highway laid out by the framers of our Constitution.
If fluoride promotes better teeth in children then it might be administered to them individually-those who want it-on the advice of the family doctor. But to treat the whole population would not be progress but the most unwise stupidity.
The Committee appointed to investigate fluoride should find out why San Diego, California, voted it out a few days ago. An Associated Press item says 50,789 people voted against it. Fluoride had been in their water supply for a year and a half. Could it be that there was no improvement in the children's teeth, and that possible harmful effects had begun to show?
Our precious drinking water here in Key West, coming to us through a pipeline for more than 150 miles and is now costing us a great deal more per gallon than is being paid for water on the mainland, should be protected against those "experts" who come down here and tell us what is "good" for us.
The Citizen welcomes expressions of the views of its readers, but the editor reserves the right to delete any items which are considered libelous or unwarranted. The writers should be fair and confine the letters to 200 words and write on one side of the paper only. Signature of the writer must accompany the letters and will be published unless requested otherwise.
NO PARALLEL
Editor, The Citizen:
In a letter on the subject of fluoridation, published in your "People's Forum" a few days ago, and signed "H. V. B.," the writer attempts to show that "Jenner's experiments in vaccination, and Pasteur's developments of inoculation," would support the belief that benefits are also to be derived from fluoride in our drinking water.
There is no parallel in this case, "H. V. B."
We have a situation here where those proposing to medicate our water supply say, in substance - handing a pill to every individual in the community, both old and young, with literally thousands of differing physical systems— "Here, take this, it's good for the children's teeth."
Wouldn't you say that is unwise compulsory medicine —when forced to take it in every drink of water when there is no contagious epidemic to combat.
If we are to commence the process of clipping away the Constitutional rights of Citizens. we have started down a side road which deviates from the highway laid out by the framers of our Constitution.
If fluoride promotes better teeth in children then it might be administered to them individually-those who want it-on the advice of the family doctor. But to treat the whole population would not be progress but the most unwise stupidity.
The Committee appointed to investigate fluoride should find out why San Diego, California, voted it out a few days ago. An Associated Press item says 50,789 people voted against it. Fluoride had been in their water supply for a year and a half. Could it be that there was no improvement in the children's teeth, and that possible harmful effects had begun to show?
Our precious drinking water here in Key West, coming to us through a pipeline for more than 150 miles and is now costing us a great deal more per gallon than is being paid for water on the mainland, should be protected against those "experts" who come down here and tell us what is "good" for us.
What sub-type of article is it?
Persuasive
Political
What themes does it cover?
Health Medicine
Constitutional Rights
What keywords are associated?
Fluoridation Opposition
Compulsory Medication
Constitutional Rights
Key West Water
San Diego Vote
What entities or persons were involved?
Editor, The Citizen
Letter to Editor Details
Recipient
Editor, The Citizen
Main Argument
opposes fluoridation of drinking water as forced compulsory medication on the entire population without consent, violating constitutional rights, unlike targeted vaccinations; advocates for individual administration by doctors for those who want it.
Notable Details
References Jenner's Vaccination And Pasteur's Inoculation As Inapplicable Parallel
Cites San Diego, California Vote Against Fluoridation (50,789 Against) After 1.5 Years
Mentions Key West's Expensive Pipeline Water Supply From Over 150 Miles Away