In 1978, Judge John P. Flaherty made a landmark decision in a major court trial with lengthy hearings and almost 3,000 pages of testimony that he was "compellingly convinced" of the serious health hazards of fluoridation. His scientific background makes his decision even more significant.
In 1988, Justice Flaherty re-affirmed his convictions that fluoridation is a very dangerous practice. In a letter dated January 26, 1988 to Ms. Evelyn Hannan, he stated,
It has been years now since the case involving fluoridation was before me as a trial judge, but since that time nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that indepth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.Whether government has the right to force what it perceives as a benefit to the public was not directly before me in the case, but that also is to be pondered.
My hope is that groups such as yours will spur the scientific community into an objective posture on this issue.
I enclose an essay which was sent to me a few years ago focusing on the issue presented by analyzing epidemiological law data. Perhaps resolution of this narrow question will provide the answer.
More recently, some people have pointed out that Judge Flaherty's decision was overturned on appeal and they assumed that therefore fluoridation wasn't really proved to be harmful. Now a member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Justice Flaherty clarified that his decision to end fluoridation was overturned only on the grounds that his court did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue. In a letter to Carol S. Kopf dated January 5, 1996, Judge Flaherty states,
Thank you for your letter. My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue, thus you are totally correct in your understanding.Over the years the scientific establishment has taken a more serious interest in the subject of fluoridation than it did at the time I made my ruling. Responsible concerns have been expressed in respected scientific publications, and statistics, then seriously sascrosanct, now questioned. That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted, yet there remain those who promote the practice!
Again, thank you for writing and I hope this answers your inquiry.