Health consultant not objective
I failed in my personal effort to have dental care for children recognised as an issue in Alpine Shire’s Municipal Public Health Plan, now rebadged as a "community well-being plan".
Despite my submission, there was no mention of it in the revised draft. At a workshop yesterday I challenged the consultant Sally Rose and received an evasive reply that the report recommends advocacy for access to public dental services.
She must have missed the point. Isn’t it better to prevent dental decay than it is to provide free dental treatment?
She also mumbled something about seeking broader public opinion on fluoride before including that in the health plan. Excuse me, but wasn’t the public consultation and submission process the way to ascertain public opinion? Or do the submissions have to agree with the opinions of Ms Rose before they’re given any credence?
I can understand Council not wanting to enter any debate about fluoridation of water supply. It’s a controversial subject. Curiously, the loony left and raving right are aligned in opposing it. They see conspiracy theories, loss of choice, etc.
I don’t think there’s any opposition though to fluoride tablets being given to children. The problem in country Victoria is that no level of government has any program in place to educate parents about fluoride. It’s not an issue in Melbourne because fluoride is added to the water.
My eldest daughter is 10 years old and nobody had ever given us any information about fluoride until our eight-year-old boy recently showed signs of brittle teeth, possibly caused by taking antibiotics as a toddler.
The same dentist remarked that she’s had to extract the teeth of children as young as two years old due to poor oral hygiene.
How hard would it be for Alpine Shire to give parents a dental fact sheet when their children are being immunised?
The consultant’s dismissal of my submission makes me wonder if she viewed this suggestion objectively, or if her other position as a Shire Councillor clouded her judgement.
Methinks it is a conflict of interest for a shire councillor to also be a shire consultant. The new Local Government Act has provisions dealing with conflict of interest and I may examine these in some detail.
I suspect that an independent consultant would have been more considerate of public submissions.
These articles might be of interest:
Tags: children, fluoride, government, health, Melbourne, opinion, PR, Victoria, work
Leave a comment
Recent comments
- Sue: I have lawn mower envy.
- Mira: hi, i am a libra fire horse born on 1966, i thankful to the live they giving me, thankful to God, my parents,my...
- Kathryn: I have just started (literally the past couple of days) trying to pick up where my mother had started...
- malissa: but IS THERE ANYTHING else 2 use besides an umberella if your just goin for a walk
- Nev: I am a cyclist and have had my share of attacks this year…. the orange flag (from Woolies at $8) and the...
