Search

The article discusses two ethical aspects of the fluoridation of water, salt, and milk. First, it considers whether fluoridation contradicts the right of self-determination. Second, it discusses the chances and risks of fluoridation. The answer to the first question depends on whether people can choose other options. Freedom of choice is not simply the right to choose between different options. It is a right which defends the moral integrity of persons. Nobody should be coerced to eat or drink something which he or she rejects morally. In the political sphere, personal rights of persons can be restricted if and only if it is necessary, if there is a public interest, and if the restriction of the right is reasonable. Regarding fluoridation, even in the best risk-chance scenario, some persons have to expect a net harm. Therefore, the reasoning in favor of fluoridation has to have a specific purpose. The proclaimed reasoning is that fluoridation will benefit the worst off and is therefore a demand of justice. But this argument fails as there are other options to benefit the worst off. Even in the best risk-chance scenario, only one option is morally permissible: the fluoridation of salt, which respects the freedom of choice.

Veterinarians are often faced with the question of whether they should treat or--in accordance with the animal owner--to end the life of a pet animal. This situation can be described as a moral dilemma. Can this moral dilemma be solved? The author argues that we have special moral obligations to care for pet animals. The special, quasi-personal relationships between pet animal and animal owners provide veterinarians in most cases with moral reasons to carry out the treatment.