The government should continue with water fluoridation programs to promote dental health. (Research Paper Sample)

TITLE: The government should continue with water fluoridation programs to promote dental health.
Topic: Water fluoridation is the responsibility of the local government in NSW. If a majority of residents in a Local Government Area are opposed to water fluoridation, the local governments should stop fluoridating the water in that Local Government Area.
Summary box
Argument: I will argue that the water fluoridation program is a safe and effective health measure that the government should continue with to promote greater public health.
Assumptions: I will assume that the people opposed to water fluoridation by the local government are misinformed about the benefits of this public health practice and that they are driven by conspiracy theories that may have adverse impacts on public health in Australia. I will also assume that it is the responsibility of the government to protect the public’s health and perform such responsibility by encouraging members of the public to engage in behaviours or do things that promote good health.
Empirical Background: (1) Water fluoridation is supported by the Australian medical associations and WHO; (2) studies have demonstrated that the program improves dental health in children and adults; (3) however, some studies have claimed that fluoridation of water has adverse effects on other body organs; (4) nevertheless, the studies challenging the benefits of water fluoridation are methodologically weak in their approach.
Main normative points:
1. . The government has a mandate and responsibility to protect public health. It must carry out its responsibility for promoting the good health of its people through water fluoridation.
2. Since everyone in Australia and NSW cannot access the dental health care system, it is only through water fluoridation that the government can ensure that the public is protected against dental caries and other oral health problems.
3. The provision of fluoridated water is also a good approach to promoting public health at a relatively cheaper cost. In its attempts to provide the public with a quality health care system, the government faces significant constraints in terms of resources available to address other competing and most pressing health care priorities.
4. The responsibilities of the government for public health go beyond voluntary services and activities. In essence, governmental responsibilities for promoting the health of its people include additional authorities, such as mandatory immunisation laws, quarantine, and regulatory authorities.
Provisional conclusion: The government has to continue protecting public health through water fluoridation.
Counterargument: Water fluoridation is mass medication and, therefore unethical. However, the greater benefits offered by fluoridated water should override any concerns about the lack of consent in the fluoridation of public water supply.
Conclusion: Studies have confirmed that water fluoridation has health benefits to members of the public, and this should spur the government to carry out its responsibility for protecting the health of its people. The discontinuation of this program by the government on the basis that mass medication is unethical would undermine public health and the best outcome for the people of NSW.

TITLE: The government should continue with water fluoridation programs to promote dental health.
Assumptions: I will assume that the people opposed to water fluoridation by the local government are misinformed about the benefits of this public health practice and that they are driven by conspiracy theories that may have adverse impacts on public health in Australia. I will also assume that it is the responsibility of the government to protect the public’s health and perform such responsibility by encouraging members of the public to engage in behaviours or do things that promote good health.