Is there a better way?

After much thought, I have come up with the conclusion that the Department of Health and Human services  really has a strange philosophy of health care.For example. Imagine there is a cure for cancer, but in order for some people to gain benefit and be healed, the medicine has to be put in the water supply, and it would mean a certain number of non-cancer sufferers would die from side effects. What figures would be an acceptable sacrifice?  What about 1000 innocent children die, in order that 100,000 cancer sufferers can be cured? Doesn’t seem right does it? Ok, what about 10 innocent children die, in order that 100,000 cancer sufferers can be cured? Still doesn’t seem right? 
Well, our Government actually subscribes to this ‘sacrifice of the innocent’   health care philosophy. They quite happily offer up thousands of innocent children to suffer in their health, in order that others might have a few less cavities in their teeth. According to the most recent Australian data from the National Child Oral Health Study 2012-14 , 0.1% of children will have moderate to severe dental fluorosis, which is caused by over exposure to fluoride. Putting fluoride in the water is greatly contributing to this overexposure.  Now 0.1% doesn’t seem like a big number but out of a population of 1 million, it is a thousand. When you think that those thousand children are someone’s cherished child, the number actually seems to be quite big. Would you be happy if your child had severe dental fluorosis, knowing the trade off was that someone else’s child, might have slightly less cavities.Consider also, that over 16% will have very mild to mild dental fluorosis. Refer to attached picture to see what severe dental fluorosis looks like. 

Something else to consider is that the highly esteemed medical journal the Lancet, published an article  by Dr Grandjean, and Dr Landrigan  in their 2014 paper 'Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity’, in which they include fluoride in a list of known developmental neurotoxins.  
They write "These new approaches must reverse the dangerous presumption that new chemicals and technologies are safe until proven otherwise. They must also overcome the existing requirement to produce absolute proof of toxicity before action can be started to protect children against neurotoxic substances. Precautionary interpretation of data about developmental neurotoxicity should take into account the very large individual and societal costs that result from failure to act on available documentation to prevent disease in children. Academic research has often favoured scepticism and required extensive replication before acceptance of a hypothesis, thereby adding to the intertia in toxicology and environmental health research and the consequent disregard of many other potential neurotoxicants. Additionally, the strength of evidence that is needed to constitute 'proof' should be analysed in a societal perspective, so that the implications of ignoring a developmental neurotixicant and of failing to act on the basis of available data are also taken into account. 

The Department of health and Human Services Victoria has read this and chosen to ignore the advice from the peer reviewed publication. 
I think it is time we re-examined the whole idea of mass medication across an entire population that has not given their informed consent, and time to put water fluoridation on hold. 
Water fluoridation was enforced upon us without any trials taking place. We kind of jumped straight into it, before the jury was out. 
What if we started a trial now? The trial would be to put water fluoridation on hold for a year, and use all the money saved from the costly practice, and put it into dental health education across all schools.  Then evaluate any difference in dental health with carefully constructed studies. Then we might decide that rather than mass medicate the whole population, and sacrificing the health of thousands of innocent children, we are better off mass educating the population. This seems so much more civilised.