Patel Bhavini, Dyer Thomas Anthony
Dental Practitioner and Alumnus, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, 19 Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, S10 2TA, UK.
Senior Clinical Teacher, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, 19 Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, S10 2TA, UK.
Br Dent J. 2025 Mar;238(5):336-343. doi: 10.1038/s41415-024-8057-5. Epub 2025 Mar 14.
Aim To examine how the ethics of community water fluoridation has been appraised in the literature.Method A scoping review using an updated Arksey and O'Malley framework. Six electronic databases were searched: Medline via OVID; Scopus; Web of Science; Cochrane Library; StarPlus and Google Scholar. Grey literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched.Results In total, 51 studies from 15 countries were included. Many referred to biomedical ethical principles intended for clinical rather than public health interventions. Some primarily aimed to appraise its ethics whereas others considered it as part of more general discussions on fluoridation. While most acknowledged its complexity, those more supportive of fluoridation often emphasised collective benefit and those less supportive emphasised infringement of autonomy or personal liberty and concerns about harm. Few referred to public health ethics principles and frameworks available in the literature.Conclusion Different approaches have been taken to appraise the ethics of fluoridation. Frequently, these were conceived for individual medical rather than public health interventions and are inadequate to resolve tension between inevitable infringement of individual consent and collective benefit in public health. Other approaches conceived specifically for public health exist that have more utility in debates and ethical decision-making.
目的 探讨文献中如何评估社区水氟化的伦理问题。方法 使用更新后的阿克西和奥马利框架进行范围综述。检索了六个电子数据库:通过OVID检索的Medline;Scopus;科学网;考克兰图书馆;StarPlus和谷歌学术。还检索了灰色文献和纳入研究的参考文献列表。结果 总共纳入了来自15个国家的51项研究。许多研究提及了适用于临床而非公共卫生干预的生物医学伦理原则。一些研究主要旨在评估其伦理问题,而另一些研究则将其视为关于氟化的更一般性讨论的一部分。虽然大多数研究承认其复杂性,但那些更支持氟化的研究通常强调集体利益,而那些不太支持的研究则强调对自主权或个人自由的侵犯以及对危害的担忧。很少有研究提及文献中可用的公共卫生伦理原则和框架。结论 已采用不同方法评估氟化的伦理问题。这些方法通常是为个体医疗而非公共卫生干预而构想的,不足以解决公共卫生中不可避免的个体同意侵犯与集体利益之间的紧张关系。存在专门为公共卫生构想的其他方法,在辩论和伦理决策中更具实用性。