On Medicating the Drinking Water

By Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Bioethicist Jacob Appel at the website bigthink.com has argued that the government should add lithium to the drinking water. He cites studies in the United States and Japan that allegedly show that where lithium is naturally present in trace amounts in the drinking water, there are lower rates of suicide and crime. He is quick to note that he is not suggesting adding "therapeutic amounts" of lithium to the drinking water, claiming that where such lithium is present in trace amounts, one would have to drink "several Olympic size pools" of water to get lithium in therapeutic doses. He adds that since there is "no reason" to believe that the water is not safe where lithium occurs naturally in trace amounts, "why not give everybody that benefit?" He further claims that lifelong exposure to lithium "makes the brain more healthy."

Appel begins his video piece on bigthink.com by stating that the first question concerning adding any pharmaceutical to the drinking water is ethical is "Should any product that might be beneficial be added to the drinking water?" He, unsurprisingly, appeals to fluoridation of drinking water as a means to dismiss this question straightaway. He accuses those who opposed adding lithium to the drinking water now as well as those who have opposed adding fluoride to the drinking water as holding "a false naturalism." Of course, this is what he says, but it is clear that he is really labeling anyone who dare oppose the scientific elites as nutters wearing aluminum foil hats. He then, speaking (or lisping, really) very slowly so that dummies can understand him, explains that pain is natural and anesthesia is not. Of course, what opponents of such Dr. Frankenstein style social engineering really worry about are the side effects of such chemicals, but no point in addressing a real objection when you have a strawman to attack, I suppose. He does return to discussing fluoride in the drinking water by appealing to the Surgeon General's praise of it. Nothing like a falacious appeal to authority to bolster a sophist's argument! Shortly thereafter, he stumbles. He begins to say that there is no evidence that fluoride in drinking water does any damage but then unconsciously qualifies that by saying "no credible evidence." In other words, the scientific studies that support his point of view are automatically credible and those that find that fluoride does do damage are automatically not credible. Good to know!

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that both fluoride and lithium are completely beneficial and pose no dangers whatsoever. Let us ignore all the very credible studies to the contrary. In fact, let us conduct a little thought experiment. The government wishes to add Beneficio to the water supply. Beneficio is a medication which cures cancer, cures all mental illnesses, cures AIDS, and has no side effects other than increasing lifespan and health. Does the government constitutionally have the right to do this?

The Federal District Court of New Jersey in Rennie v. Klein (1978), a case in which an involuntarily committed patient sued to prevent the hospital from administering psychotropic drugs to him without a clear emergency, held that:

The protection of liberty embodied in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to refuse administration of anti-psychotic drugs. The state may compel such medication in the face of a patient's refusal to accept it only by demonstrating either that the medication is necessary to prevent a danger to the patient or to others in the community, or that the patient does not have the mental capacity to determine for himself his course of treatment.

Therefore, under the Constitution, Americans have a right to refuse being given medication. This would include fluoride, lithium, and any other soma-like substance that the scientific elite and progressive social engineers would like to put into the drinking water.

However, scientific elites and progressive social engineers will never back down. They never do. It is easy to imagine them arguing that suicide, violent crime, or some other bugaboo makes each of us a threat to ourselves and others. While any such argument would, of course, be specious, it is not difficult to imagine five of nine justices on a Supreme Court that is increasingly indifferent or even hostile to rights accepting something like it.

The best ultimate grounds for justifying the right to refuse medications such as fluoride or lithium in the drinking water is an appeal to the natural right of self ownership. The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is a clear recognition that just because a natural right is not specifically stated in the Constitution, it does not mean that Americans do not possess that right. The natural right of self ownership is perhaps best stated by philosopher John Locke (whose ideas Jefferson clearly liberally borrowed in writing the Declaration of Independence): "Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person.' This nobody has any right to but himself." This natural right is clearly a necessary basis for the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed in our republican form of government. Furthermore, it is clearly recognized in the Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery and involuntary servitude. Thus, in virtue of being humans, we possess a natural right against having fluoride, lithium, or any other medication placed into our drinking water.