Nigel Smetham, head of water quality at Southern Water (Letters, June 13) said: "Under the Water Act, 2003, the decision on whether or not to add fluoride to the supply rests with the Strategic Health Authority, not Southern Water."

This contradicts the Council of Europes' Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which says: "States may not medicate any individual contrary to his/her wishes except in exceptional conditions of public health emergencies. All medical interventions must be carried out under proper medical supervision, and in accordance with the patient's personal needs."

Tooth decay is neither contagious nor unavoidable so cannot be deemed a public health emergency.

He also said: "Our role is to provide technical information on supply and distribution arrangements associated with any scheme promoted."

Is Mr Smetham unaware the use of unregistered substances for medicinal purposes is illegal under the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive 2001/83/EEC, and the fluorosilicates scheduled for use in water fluoridation have not been registered nor tested for safety? Or that, under Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to health care includes the right to refuse health care?

Surely the responsibility of water companies is to provide safe, potable water.

Finally, he said: "In terms of customers' views on this matter, regulations were introduced last year which require a health authority to consult fully with customers before implementing any fluoridation scheme."

Imposition of "majority preference" based on public vote results violates the principle of the absolute right of a single individual to refuse medication. It constitutes an attempt to induce the public to endorse an act which violates the rights of a (presumed) minority and is illegal under Article 17 of the Convention on Human Rights.

-Helen Dear, Southwick