RSS
 

Archive for December, 2008

Jihâd: A Struggle for Meaning

22 Dec

Everyday, my young son (now four years old) uses words improperly.  My wife and I giggle and try to guide him to the correct word and meaning.  Sometimes, we have no clue what he means and must acknowledge his point with a simple “Wow” or “OK.”  Many times children are not the only people who use words incorrectly or without knowledge of their meanings.  Too often, people watch their favorite media outlet accepting the implied meaning and connotation of words without a passing thought.  Americans often hear the word “jihâd” incorrectly and assume its meaning to be as implied.

Jihâd derives from the verb jahada which means to struggle or make an effort and appears in the Qur’an forty-one times (Quinlan par. 6).  The Qur’an, the holy book of the Muslim religion, describes jihâd as a duty and gives many hints that lead to a deeper meaning (Haq par. 10).  “Islamic literature speaks of jihâd as a total endeavor” that practitioners struggle with every day (Haq par. 9).  In Chapter five, verse 35 of the Qur’an, we read, “Seek the means to come to Him [God], and struggle in His [God's] way.”  To Muslims, the “struggle” of God’s way has an inner and outer meaning.  Muhammad called the inner jihâd “the greater jihâd” which signifies the struggle to be a good person and become closer to God (Quinlan par. 6).  The outer meaning has several connotations.

One meaning of the outer or lesser jihâd is the armed struggle one has using life’s successes while staying true to the cause of God (Haq par. 9).  Referring to Chapter 9, verse 41, we read: “Struggle in God’s way with your possessions and your selves.”  Another meaning  deals with actual combat (Quinlan par. 7).  Muslims can look to the Qur’an for direction to what that means and when combat is allowed.  There are four main ideas found in the Qur’an.  S. Nomanul Haq, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, eloquently describes each and provides chapters and verses:

First, there exist in the Qur’ân verses that enjoin forgiveness for offenses and encourage invitation to Islam by peaceful persuasion (e.g., 2:109; 3:157-159).  Second, one finds verses that enjoin fighting but only in defense to ward off aggression, expressly forbidding aggression (e.g., 2:190).  Third, there are those that permit initiative in fighting but not within the four sacred months (e.g., 9:5).  And finally, those that allow taking the initiative in fighting at any time and at any place, provided that there are compelling reasons of being actually or potentially wronged, oppressed, or threatened (e.g., 2:217).  (par. 11)

While jihâd may end using combat, it also ends with a transforming nature that corrects wrongdoing and restores “goodness , order, and justice” (Quinlan par. 7).

The combat aspect is what causes most of the commotion as the Qur’an, like the Bible, can be read and interpreted differently (Quinlan par. 12).  However, inflicting injury to women, children, and civilians is not allowed and is “completely forbidden by Islamic Law” (Quinlan par. 26).  A general observation is that unlawful aggression generated from the ego is not allowed or encouraged in the Qur’an or Hadîth (Haq par. 12).  Unlawful aggression is often linked to terrorism, and labeled jihâd; but, given the scriptures above, we find the two cannot be connected.  Why media outlets continually force feed this false connection to their unknowing viewers or readers is a mystery.

Recently, the Economist entitled an article “Jailhouse jihad” which immediately misuses the term and left a bad taste in my mouth.  The title implies to me that people struggling with their own jihâd must or should be in jail.  The article asserts that “jihadists” in prison may be plotting attacks on France and that Muslim prisoners should not be held together to prevent a conspiracy.  Unless these Muslim prisoners are being kept unlawfully or being repressed, why would they perform jihâd against France?  The answer is easy: They would not.

The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “China Terms Assault a ‘Jihad’ ” that tries to link an attempt to disrupt the Beijing Olympics with a jihâd.  The article also cites an attack that killed 16 people and wounded 16 others.  Both instances victimized innocent people including women and children.  These actions are termed jihâd, but where do you see the result helping someone be more like God or bring more people to Islam?  Does the result right a wrongdoing?  Both questions can be answered with an emphatic no.  The precepts of Islam are not anywhere near the reasons for such horrific actions.

The New York Times published an article in June 2007 by Abby Goodnough about Jose Padilla and his “secret plans to travel overseas and wage jihad.”  Jose Padilla used code words in conversations as he planned terrorist activities that included detonating a radioactive “dirty bomb.”  Those conversations were allegedly in code for engaging in jihâd.  “Dirty bombs” are not target specific weapons and are used as area weapons.  This means its detonation would impact civilians and possibly harm women and children which is forbidden by Islamic Law and is not jihâd.  Jose Padilla is a terrorist and his attempted terroristic actions are not a jihâd.

Newspapers are not the only media outlets misusing the word jihâd.  Paul Gigot on Fox News spoke on the story “Jihad in Britain” during his The Journal Editorial Report segment where jihâdist terrorist doctors were allegedly plotting to hurt patients in the name of religious fanaticism.  As we look at what we have learned,  we know that the words “jihâdist” and “terrorist” cannot be used together as a true jihâdist is not interested in terrorizing people and especially killing their own patients.  It would be more appropriate to term them “terrorist doctors.”  However, because of their religion, the word jihâd is added and ignorance about its meaning is perpetuated.

These are just a few instances that illustrate the media’s disrespect for Islam and its follower’s struggle to be closer to God.  When I put myself in the shoes of a Muslim who sees this blasphemy, I am saddened, angered, and hurt.  A Muslim’s internal jihâd is a personal tribulation which takes hard work and preservarance.  The coupling of this sacred jihâd with terroristic actions insults the very ideas Muslims hold dear.  The demonization of Muslims and their religious struggle must end.

People watch and read media outlets and assume their words are fact.  These media outlets misuse the word jihâd often enough that people cannot see the insult.  The public then begins to perpetuate the misuse to their family and friends causing unfounded stereotypes to blossom.  The constant linking of jihâd with terrorism is causing the public to believe all Muslims are terrorists.  The only way to change this activity is to demand the proper use of jihâd through the re-education of those who use it badly.  The daily struggle to correct my son will invariably spill over to those who attempt to misuse the word jihâd around me.  In this instance, practice just might lead to perfection.

—–
Works Cited

Areddy, James T. “World News: China Terms Assault a ‘Jihad’; Official Says Attack On the Police Aimed To Disrupt Games.” Wall Street Journal  [New York, N.Y.] 6 Aug. 2008, Eastern edition: A.6. Wall Street Journal. ProQuest. Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/>.

Goodnough, Abby. “F.B.I. Agent Tells Padilla Jury of Coded Plans for Jihad.(National Desk) (Federal Bureau of Investigation)(Jose Padilla).”The New York Times (June 9, 2007): A10(L). Academic OneFile. Gale. St Edwards University. 28 Nov. 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE>

Haq, S. Nomanul. “Revisiting the Question of Islam and Violence.” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 40.4 (Winter2001 2001): 302. Religion and Philosophy Collection. EBSCO. Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 29 Nov. 2008 <https://ezproxy.stedwards.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=6638367&site=ehost-live>.

“Jailhouse jihad.” Economist 387.8598 (20 Sep. 2008): 69-69. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 29 Nov. 2008 <https://ezproxy.stedwards.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34438581&site=ehost-live>.

“Jihad in Britain.” The Journal Editorial Report. Paul Gigot.  Fox News Channel.  7 Jul. 2007.

Quinlan, Esther Sakinah. “The Jihâd Question.” Tikkun 17.5 (Sep. 2002): 55. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 29 Nov. 2008 <https://ezproxy.stedwards.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7199749&site=ehost-live>.

 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics/Social Topics

 

OCCUPATION: A Dying Idea

19 Dec

When one thinks of the creation of the state of Israel, one may immediately assume that Jews around the world are completely supportive of the idea.  The idea of having a home to call their own is a wonderful idea.  This idea is not only a personal home for their families, but for their religion.  After all, it seems Jewish people and their religion have been driven from more places than welcomed.  The questions of how and when were answered in 1948, but the question of “at what cost” is still being debated.  Since 1948, the supplanting of many Palestinians for Jewish people is termed the occupation.  The cost of having a Jewish state is becoming more apparent and some believe are against the teachings of Judaism.  Many Jewish practitioners are coming out in their objection to the manner of implementation and overall need.

One group, Peace Now, has advocated “a freeze on further settlements” while advocating peace throughout the region (Peretz 134).  There have been reports of owners’ homes being bulldozed in order to make room for the new settlements which further widens the occupation and increases tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.  These bulldozing incidents have generated high levels of defamatory feelings toward Jews from around the world.  In his article, “Ha’aretz: Colonial Zionism,”  Zeev Sternhell gives the opinion that he has considered this destructive behavior “a large question mark over Israel’s future” (par. 1).  One can derive that the government of Israel is very intent on a goal of creating a place for Jews while squeezing out Palestinian people.  The effect reaches farther than just the Palestinian people.

Some Jews are whole heartedly against the idea of taking land that may have belonged to a family for more than 100 years and giving it to their Jewish counterparts.  Those Jews who agree with that notion may not speak out when other Jews are around.  Fear is the main reason.  Opposing the occupation is such a sensitive topic that Jews who criticize the occupation can earn the nick name “self-haters” by their friends and other Jews (Terkel par. 45).  Many are beginning to realize that the actions used to create the state are at odds with some of the core teachings of Judaism.  Sternhall boldly asserts that, “if Israeli society is unable to muster the courage necessary to put an end to the settlements, the settlements will put an end to the state of the Jews and will turn it into a bi-national state” (par. 11).  Personally, given the massive support Israel receives from other countries, I believe Israel has the military might to never let Sternhall’s assertion happen.

Israel receives an estimated $113 billion of military aid directly from the United States (McArthur par. 1).  This amount of funding portrays an agreement of the actions of the Israeli government and an indication that the United States wants Israel to continue on its current track.  An interesting fact is that the United States gives Israel cash for its aid (McArthur par. 4).  As American Jewish opponents to the occupation increase and speak out, the support of this type of aid will diminish.  The main sticking point referring to this aid seems to revolve around the occupation and many proponents of the end of this aid require aid to stop while occupation exists (Kamel).  Kamel also believes that talking about decreasing aid is not controversial, but better described as “taboo.”  However, the calls for change are echoing from the United State’s highest office.

In January 2008,  President Bush called on the Israeli government to end its occupation of many territories while predicting that a treaty would be signed and in force before he leaves office in 2009 (Attewell).  This call to action solidifies the change in support from the United States and echoes many American Jews.  However, the money still flows in the direction of Israel.  President Bush’s “lame duck” status may not garner a full policy change.

Another goal of the occupation has been to create an exclusive presence of Jewish people while being more or less tolerant of any Arabs that remain (Aruri 117).  This exclusivity is not one of the teachings of Judaism.  Many Jews strive to spread the word of God to everyone.  However, due to the hate generated from the occupation, many Jews find themselves wanting the protection of the military and separation from Arab life.  Realizing this vicious cycle has lead many Israeli military reservists to refuse to serve in occupied territories (Terkel).  This is inherently hard for the Israeli government to swallow.

The switch of viewpoint in the United States may be because many younger Jews are not as attached to the idea of Israel.  With every generation, the populace begins to lose sight of past issues and events.  Many older living Americans can tell you what they were doing when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.  However, because President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated generations ago, it is not a current topic of conversation.  Many of these younger Jews are becoming old enough to vote and that spurs politicians in non-occupation directions.  Some of these younger Jews may end up in public office further strengthening the opposition.  The phenomenon of the loss of attachment of younger Jews to Israel may end up being the end of the idea of occupation.   Allen Brownfield quoted the results of a study where respondents prove this phenomenon:

“For example, less than half (48 percent) of respondents under 35 agreed that ‘Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy,’ compared to 78 percent of those 65 and older. And just 54 percent of the younger group are ‘comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state,’ compared to 81 percent of those 65 and older, 74 percent of those 50-64 and 64 percent of the 35-49 age group.” (par. 6)

Some Jewish organizations are going further than letting the populace lose the idea of a state by saying Jews should not have a state altogether; one such group is Jews United Against Zionism (JUAZ).  In a 2006 interview, Neil Cavuto explores this notion of whether there is supposed to be a Jewish state with Rabbi Yisroel Weiss of JUAZ.  Weiss contends that rabbinical authorities say that the goal of having a state or land is against Judaism teachings.  Further Weiss says that it is, “expressly forbidden by the Torah because we are in exile by God.”  Does this mean Jews should not have a state at all?  Weiss says “Yes.”

The assumption that all Jews desire, require, or even believe in a Jewish state is a false one.  Many Jews are becoming quick to remind society the manner of creating Israel is not conducive to the teachings of Judaism.  Jews strive to remind everyone to love others as you would love yourself.  Causing the pain and suffering of men, women, and children is not the way Jews would love themselves.  The Torah’s influence on Jews include the ten commandments.  Many Jews believe the occupation violates the eight commandment: You shall not steal. Many Jews believe the occupation is to blame for the crisis in Israel.  While the government of Israel continues to build settlements and increase the occupation, Jews everywhere are beginning to call for a halt.

The creation of Israel has caused people to be dispersed and lose their homes.  This realization reminds Jews of their own previous tribulations and causes remorse among them.  As Jews continue to face taboo looks and name calling, they will increase their voice of displeasure with the occupation.  This voice will cause the people of the United States and other countries to rethink their support of the state of Israel.  Steadily, the populace will age and the idea of Israel may lose its luster to the history books.  While many like the idea of having a home for their religion, maybe the home of Judaism is meant to be dispersed through many countries and not just in one.

—–

Works Cited
Amiel, Barbara.  “A Plague Without a Cure.” MacLean’s.  08 Mar. 2004     <http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20040308_76758_76758&source=srch>

Aruri, Naseer H., ed. Occupation: Israel Over Palestine. Massachusetts: Association of Arab-American     University Graduates, 1983.

Atapattu, Don. “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.” CounterPunch.  13 Dec. 2001         <http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein1.html>

Attewill, Fred.  “Bush calls on Israel to end occupation of Palestinian land.” Guardian. 10 Jan. 2008     <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/10/usa.israelandthepalestinians1>

“Blame Israel.” Your World with Cavuto. Neil Cavuto.  Fox News Channel.  4 Aug. 2006.

Brownfeld, Allan C. “Debunking Israel Lobby, Study Shows Growing Alienation of American Jews     From Israel.” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 26.9 (Dec. 2007): 69-81.

Kamel, Rachael. “Jews, Israel, and the United States: Talking Points for Jewish Antiwar Activism.”     EndTheOccupation. 27 Oct. 2008 <http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=12>

McArthur, Shirl. “A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: Almost $114 Billion.”     Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 27.8 (Nov. 2008): 10-11.

Peretz, Don. The West Bank: History, Politics, Society, and Economy. Colorado: Westview Press, 1986.

Sternhell, Zeev. “Ha’aretz: Colonial Zionism.” PeaceNow. 17 Oct. 2008     <http://www.peacenow.org/readings.asp?rid=&cid=5483>.

Terkel, Jon. “Israel and the Jewish soul.” OnlineReport. 14 Apr. 2002         <http://www.fims.uwo.ca/olr/apr1502/Israelfeature.html>

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics/Social Topics

 

Fluoridation: Times Have Changed

17 Dec

Surfing the Internet while sitting in a coffee shop is a great pastime. I enjoy a good cup of coffee and listening to the conversations around me. As I sit, I hear some really amazing debates. The debate today really caught my interest. Two men had engrossed themselves in steaming cups of coffee and mild irritation about each other’s viewpoints about something I had never heard about: Fluoridation of the Public Water Supply. Both had great points, but neither could convince the other. I quickly made up my mind this was something I wanted to research on my own. This project gave me a great opportunity to research this topic and answer the question: Should the public water supply be fluoridated?

Many people do not realize how important water is to our wellbeing. Our bodies can live weeks without food, but only days without water. The importance of clean drinking water cannot be exaggerated. The public water system supplies the people with on-demand water which we would expect to be pure. However, in 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city in the U.S. to add fluoride to its water supply (Fagan par. 7). Today, nearly 60% of the U.S. population drinks water with added fluoride. This includes 46 of the 50 largest cities in the U.S. (Fagan par. 2).

Fluoridation is an adjustment to the concentration of fluoride in the water (Swain par. 1). The element fluoride is anything that contains fluorine and, according to the American Dental Association (ADA), is found in all food and beverages (Swain par. 2). The reasons to fluoridate the water relate to improving dental health of all individuals through one source.

THE BENEFITS

The existence of fluoride in the tooth builds resistance to tooth decay (Waldbott 61). Fluoride does this through the utilization of two different processes. First, fluoride becomes embedded in the crystalline structures of the main mineral component of teeth and replaces some molecules to increase resistance to acid. Secondly, fluoride improves the tooth surface’s ability to displace calcium and phosphate which assist in the sustained rebuilding of the enamel (Fagan par. 10). Decreasing tooth decay is also helpful in preventing some diseases because bad dental health promotes cavities which act as avenues for bacteria and toxins to enter the blood stream (Waldbott 75). The statistics relating to how well fluoridation serves the public for improved dental health are staggering.

In the fifteenth year of fluoridation, Grand Rapids reported a 50% – 63% drop in tooth decay for children 15-16 years old (Waldbott 70). After three years of fluoridation in Newburgh, New York, officials announced a 31% reduction in tooth decay in children (Waldbott 69). These statistics accelerated the proliferation of fluoridation in America. In 1960, 23% of the U.S. Population was using fluoridated water. That percentage increased to 39% by 1970 and 50% by 1980 (Doyle 214). Many public-health officials now consider fluoridation “to be one of the great health advances of the last one hundred years, ranking it with pasteurization of milk, immunization against disease, and the provision of safe drinking water” (Doyle 213). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has also endorsed fluoridation “as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century, alongside vaccines and family planning” (Fagan par. 2).

THE DISADVANTAGES

As I waded through the accolades and endorsements of fluoridation, a snowball of adverse effects on the internal health of people began to surface and build its case against fluoridation. Dr. George Waldbott in Fluoridation the Great Dilemma asserts that “no other procedure in the history of medicine has been praised so highly nor at the same time condemned so thoroughly” (353). Waldbott also warns that fluoridation assessment must not include only its effectiveness against dental decay, but must include “possible hazards of increased fluoride ingestion and absorption” (108).

Ingestion and absorption appear to be having adverse effects to both the heart and the kidneys while increasing cancer risks to other parts of the body. Studies have brought awareness that excess fluoride may have doubled deaths from heart disease in some communities (Walbot 158). Kidneys take on the main responsibility of excreting fluoride and high levels of fluoride have been prevalent in cases of kidney failure (Doyle 219). Dr. Jacob Bruce, a graduate from Harvard Medical School, asserts that continued ingestion of fluorine can bring the beginning of a cancer due to the cells coming apart and spurring out of control reproduction (qtd. in Buck 51). Elise Bassin of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine collected data from cancer patients with a matched control group and “concluded that fluoride is a risk factor for cancer among boys” (Fagan par. 21).

Skeletal fluorosis, the hardening of bones making them brittle, can be caused by excessive fluoride intake (Doyle 218). Walbott asserts that the way fluoride reacts to bone is similar to teeth in that it incorporates into the main building block of bones creating greater density, but this new bone is unhealthy and can break easily. Newly formed bone can result in arthritis and bone spurs which pinch nerves causing numbness to paralysis (81). Walbott adds, “The intake of fluoride, even in amounts as small as those consumed in fluoridated communities, produces a kaleidoscope of adverse effects” (168). At a National Research Council public meeting, Joyce Donohue, toxicologist in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water, asserted that “new research suggests that low levels of fluoride have negative developmental effects and effects on the brain” (Hileman, “Fluoride Concerns” par. 8).

The negative effects of fluoride do not stop there. It appears the general welfare of communities may be at risk from fluoridation. Mr. Cox, who was one of the originators of fluoridation, stated simply that “fluorides are among the most toxic of substances” (qtd in Waldbott 76). Another researcher, Dr. Veikko Hurme, specifically labeled fluorine as “a protoplasmic and enzymatic poison” (qtd in Buck 113). The EPA recommended fluoride levels contain less fluoride needed to cause the excessive ingestion, but because there is uncertainty of the exact amount of fluoride people ingest from food, dental hygiene products, and drinking water, they cannot guarantee ingested levels will not reach a level that might cause harm (Fagan par. 3). This idea caused the NRC to release a report in 2006 insisting the EPA’s limit “be lowered because of health risks to both children and adults” (Fagan par. 3). Twenty-four years earlier, Dr. Dennis Leverett of the Eastman Medical Center in New York made the same observation, theorizing that the food chain is adding fluoride and that fluoridation of public water should be reevaluated (Doyle 223).

Another aspect of this debate is whether fluoridation of the public water supply violates our civil rights. The Delaney Committee which reported to the House of Representatives wrote that “it is safe to say that fluoridation is mass medication without parallel in the history of medicine” (qtd. in Buck 97). The Medical-Dental Ad Hoc committee on the Evaluation of Fluoridation called fluoridation “compulsory mass medication without precedent” (Buck 45). When individuals do not have a choice, it can be said that liberty has been taken away. Forcing a population to use fluoridated water is a violation of their civil rights. That same committee also penned strongly that “the function of a public water supply is to provide pure, safe water for everybody; not to serve as a vehicle for drugs” (Buck 45).

PROTECT THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE

I cannot agree more that the public water facilities should provide the most pure and safe water possible. People should know that one of their most basic needs is not tainted. In light of this research, I believe that fluoride should be removed from the public water supply. It is hard to believe that so many organizations endorse an activity that has such a potential to hurt communities. 1945 was a different time and much of what we eat and drink now contains fluoride. The authorities cannot be sure how much fluoride you ingest and whether you are overdosed. The kicker is that “fluoridation mainly benefits children through the age of permanent-teeth formation (fourteen years)” (Doyle 215). So, why force everyone to partake in this mass medication? It seems logical to ensure that you do not do something that might hurt people.

There are alternatives to fluoridation including focusing on the main benefit: better dental health. Dr. Harris before the US Senate in 1951 stated his preference to treat teeth is to have a dentist dry the tooth surface and apply fluoride directly to the teeth. Let it stand a few minutes then rinse it off (qtd in Buck 97). That seems so easy and I can already hear an objection: What about those who cannot afford to go to the dentist? The answer is to continue using fluoride toothpaste. Essentially, we already do as Dr. Harris suggests by squirting some fluoride on our toothbrushes, brushing for a time and rinsing.

THE MORAL LENSE

It would not be ethical for me not to analyze my position that we should stop fluoridating our water supply. To do this, I will use the Ruggiero Model for moral decision-making. The Ruggiero Model considers facts, obligations, ideals and consequences. First, the facts are simple. Fluoridation improves dental health. Excessive fluoride intake causes many health issues.

The obligations may seem sticky. The authorities appear to believe they have an obligation to provide the best dental health available. In reality, that obligation is the people’s not the authorities. The authorities have an obligation to provide the information about the best dental health possible. The authorities also have an obligation to adhere to the civil rights of the public. Also, the obligation to ensure that they do not inadvertently hurt people is important. The conflict is between what the authorities believe they should provide, the possibility of hurting someone due to fluoridation, and the people’s right to make decisions about their health. The obligation to ensure that they do not inadvertently hurt someone is most important here. By continuing to fluoridate, authorities are risking excessive fluoride ingestion.

The ideal that exists in this debate is that people should have the best heath care possible. Values that are prevalent in this ideal are loyalty, fairness, and forgiveness. Loyalty is represented by both the people and the authorities. The authorities must be loyal to the people to ensure their welfare while the people must be loyal in their appreciation and civic duties to their community. The authorities must be fair to the people by ensuring that they do not add fluoride to the food chain that will have adverse effects. The people must forgive the authorities and know that 1945 was a different time and that the decisions to fluoridate were based on what they knew then. Science changes all the time.

The consequences of fluoridating water are that dental health will be improved, but that general welfare of the people will be infringed and some people may die. The consequences of not fluoridating indicate that money will need to be spent retooling water treatment facilities and the fluoride market will be impacted. Also, the population’s dental health will be adversely affected unless an alternative is provided and endorsed. The later consequences are more preferable to the first. Quality of life and long healthy lives outweigh monetary needs.

END OF THE LINE

I believe the logical lense of the Ruggiero Model clearly indicates that we should stop fluoridating our water supply to ensure we do not hurt people. The research shows that ingestion and absorption of excessive fluoride can cause a host of ailments that could ultimately lead to death. My wife and I have agreed to limit our fluoride ingestion and absorption while using toothpaste as a means to fluoridate our family’s teeth. Fluoridation is wonderful for increasing dental health; however, the ingestion of fluoride can cause health concerns that outweigh the benefits.

—–

(Normally, a Works Cited would have tabs and stuff; however, due to software limitations, I am unable to properly format it.)

Works Cited

Buck, Robert M. The Grim Truth About Fluoridation. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1964.

Doyle, Rodger Pirnie. The Medical Wars. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1983.

Fagin, Dan. “Second Thoughts about Fluoride.” Scientific American 298.1 (Jan. 2008): 74-81.Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. St. Edward’s University, Austin, TX. 24 Nov. 2008 <https://ezproxy.stedwards.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=27817795&site=ehost-live>.

Hileman, Bette. “Fluoride Concerns Surface Once Again.” Chemical and Engineering News 81.34 (2003): 22-23. St Edwards University. 24 Nov. 2008 <http://pubs.acs.org.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/isubscribe/journals/cen/81/i34/html/8134gov1.html>.

—. “Fluoride Risks Are Still A Challenge.” Chemical and Engineering News 84.36 (2006):34-37. St Edwards University. 24 Nov. 2008 <http://pubs.acs.org.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/isubscribe/journals/cen/84/i36/html/8436gov1.html>.

Swain, Liz. “Fluoridation.” Environmental Encyclopedia. Ed. Marci Bortman, Peter Brimblecombe and Mary Ann Cunningham. 3rd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Opposing ViewpointsResource Center. Gale. St Edwards University. 24 Nov. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.docontentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3018200559&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=txshracd2555&version=1.0>.

Waldbott, George, Albert Burgstahler, and H. Lewis McKinney. Fluoridation the Great Dilemma. Kansas: Coronado Press, 1978.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics/Social Topics