HEALTH chiefs are accused of "emotional blackmail" today over children's dental health in their campaign to have fluoride added to drinking water.

They are sending toothpaste to parents of two-year-olds and, at the same time, urging them to ask North West Water to put the controversial compound in water supplies.

But, as ever with this long-running issue, there are two sides to the story.

And the regional health authority are charged with telling only one - that of the purported benefits of fluoridation in preventing tooth decay.

It is, however, the moral issue that East Lancashire anti-fluoride campaigner Linda Forrest is right to target in addition to the potential side-effects.

People should have the freedom to choose, she says.

Quite right - they should. And that is the fault of the health chiefs' drive for mass medication.

It would virtually remove - or would certainly seriously diminish - the choice of millions of people over whether they should be involuntarily dosed with a drug.

True, the health authority is well-intentioned.

But their approach is paternalistic, not democratic.

And it is significant that one of the greatest obstacles in their bid to have fluoride added to water supplies has been the resistance of local authorities in the region.

To us, that is a telling instance of where the greater sense of responsibility lies on this question.

Councils are made up of elected representatives with a close rapport with ordinary people.

The health authority is not.

On fluoride, the local authorities exercise their responsibility in regard to public sentiment.

The health chiefs would ignore public wishes simply because they believe they are right.

But even if they are right and got their way, it would still amount to an abuse of power.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.