Search
Close this search box.

Kiyunga: A sick health centre

Luuka

Kiyunga Health Centre IV in Luuka District is facing a host of problems impeding service delivery at the facility. People with premature babies at the health facility are forced to light charcoal stoves and lamps to give the babies warmth since there is no electricity at the hospital.

There is congestion at the facility which has only two wards, the maternity and a general ward, the latter is shared by both male and female patients, children and adults.

The facility also lacks a mortuary, a situation which has forced patients on several occasions to share their ward with dead bodies overnight. According to Luuka officials and residents the lack of a mortuary has lead to a miscarriage of justice.

“We find it very hard in cases of death. The hospital where we would take bodies for postmortem has no mortuary and sometimes we fail to access medical (postmortem) reports on such deaths because relatives are left to take their bodies because there is no mortuary,” the acting District Police Commander, Mr Charles Nyongesa, said, citing cases of suspected murder and accidents.

The former mortuary at the hospital is dilapidated and unusable. It is roofless and has no windows.

Mr Wilber Meregulwa, a resident of Kasozi Mawembe in Bulongo Sub-county, says he had to keep the body of his one-and-a-half-year-old boy who died at around 8pm in the ward until the following day.

“We were stranded and some nurses advised me to cover the body within the bed until the next day because I had no ready means of transporting the body to my village and the health centre ambulance lacked fuel,” Mr Meregulwa said.

Dr Matthias Wabwire Panyako, the officer in-charge of the facility, says they are always stranded with bodies after patients die. He says: “Immediately one dies, we assist the bereaved relatives to arrange for transporting the body to their respective village. We have an ambulance that was donated by the area MP Johnson Bagoole, readily available for fuelling to remove bodies out of the health facility.”

Dr Panyako says the health facility, which is due for elevation to a district hospital status after rehabilitation by the Ministry of Health expected to start this month, serves more than 150 patients daily and registers at least one death every day.

The District Health Officer, Dr Enock Kwikiriza, says: “We have written to the line ministry to give it (mortuary) a first priority during the redevelopment and maintenance of the centre,” he said.

editorial@ug.nationmedia.com

Source: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1398438/-/view/printVersion/-/2g01uhz/-/index.html

Apart from the toilets, what really is free at Mulago hospital?

I have heard a lot about the suffering people go through at the National Referral Hospital, Mulago: congestion, paid parking slots, rude workers, corruption, the filth, etc.

Recently, I experienced this first hand. My mother who is in her 60s was admitted to Mulago and I went to attend to her. We were ushered into a room which only hard old boxes, and the nurse assured me how lucky I was to get a ‘bed’.

Days rolled; the doctor kept on requesting for a number of tests to be done- all at a fee. The final verdict finally came and the doctor told me my mum was due for operation, that she had goitre. He referred us to another doctor for the operation. I called the doctor and she said Mulago did not have the facilities needed for the operation.

This same doctor told me to raise a minimum of Shs3 million to book a theatre in another hospital where she will perform the operation from. To date, I am speechless how the national referral hospital cannot do an operation other small hospitals around town can handle. As I work round the clock to raise the money for this operation, I keep wondering and asking myself what is really free at Mulago apart from the toilets.

Kiyingi Bbosa,
Student Makerere University

Source: http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Letters/-/806314/1396996/-/view/printVersion/-/oxj10ez/-/index.html

Feature: Maternal health case puts govt on the spot

As Sylvia Nalubowa cried out in agony and begged the nurses to help her, she pledged to give them part of her kibanja (plot of land), hens and pigs if they could save her life.

Only 38, Nalubowa had developed complications after she managed to give birth to one of her twins normally. With the second baby twin still posited in her uterus, Nalubowa’s mother-in-law, Rhoda Kukkirizza, moved her from the government health centre III in Mityana to Mityana district hospital, hoping Nalubowa would get better services there. She did not. An affidavit to a Constitutional Court petition, challenging government to provide better maternal health services, states that Nalubowa died at the hands of negligent and corrupt medical workers.

She became part of the statistics that are Uganda’s maternal mortality rate or MMR (the number of women that die whilst giving birth). Standing at 435 of 100,000 live births, there is general consensus that Uganda’s MMR remains unacceptably high. In 2009, Nalubowa’s tragic tale put a face to the country’s MMR. Her death shook the administration of Mityana district hospital and the ripples spread throughout the nation. It did not take the civil society long to voice its disgust.

The Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) did more than voice its disgust. It lodged a constitutional petition, seeking a declaration that government’s failure to provide proper maternal health services to women be deemed a violation of their rights.
Nalubowa’s family, together with that of Jennifer Anguko, another woman who died due to negligence during childbirth in 2010, are among the petitioners seeking justice, not just for their departed relatives, but also for other women who have lost their lives while giving life, as well as others likely to become statistics in Uganda’s grim MMR.

Filed on March 3, 2011, the case kicked off with a very high momentum and attracted ample interest from the media and Ugandans at large. It was supported by affidavits from the families of Nalubowa and Anguko, and from human rights experts like Professor Ben Twinomugisha (Dean, faculty of Law at Makerere University). In their submissions to court, the petitioners argued that the right to health was a human right the government had failed to respect and protect.

The state, however, denied violating women’s right to health, contending that the petition was speculative and without merit. But the petitioners insisted that the maternal deaths were due to government failure to provide basics like razor blades, plastic sheets and other consumables, let alone medicines and medical personnel to attend to pregnant women.

In response, the state reasoned that the government’s meagre resources have to cater for various competing interests that also affect other human rights. And, health aside, the state said the petition raised political rather than legal questions, and objected to court hearing it. The petitioners now await the court’s decision on whether or not it will hear the case.

“We just want court to tell us whether the death of over 16 women due to child birth-related complications is not a violation of human rights. Why is the judiciary dragging its feet?” says David Kabanda, a lawyer for the petitioners.

A letter signed by Deputy Chief Justice Mpagi Bahigeine not only expresses regret at the delay in delivering the ruling, but also promises that everything possible is being done to ensure disposal of the case.

But the petitioners are not convinced. “We do not want regrets,” Kabanda says. “We want a ruling. The judiciary should tell us if they do not have the mandate to decide the case so that we seek other avenues.”

He adds that if the Constitutional Court has expediently disposed of other cases — like the one that challenged the Inspector General of Government’s mandate to prosecute cases of corruption, a case also filed in 2011 — it should be in position to quickly decide on the pertinent issue of women’s lives.

“We understand that there is backlog and the judiciary is understaffed, but priority should go to the rights of pregnant women. Pregnancy will not wait. Every day, 16 women die due to pregnancy-related complications,” Kabanda says.

Judiciary only hope
Uganda’s Constitution has a comprehensive bill of rights, but its rich provisions on human rights have not necessarily translated into respect for human rights in the country. In addition, Uganda is signatory to international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of a Child, and the regional African Charter on Human and People’s rights.

All these protect the rights of women and children, and the right to health. On December 15, 2011, Parliament passed a resolution, which, if executed, would come in handy in addressing the issue of maternal mortality. The resolution urges government to expedite the reformation of the midwives’ training curriculum and to recruit a minimum of 2,000 well-trained and well-motivated midwives and other medical personnel.

It further says government should report periodically to Parliament on progress on maternal health. Uganda, as a member of the World Health Organisation’s Safe Motherhood programme, is expected to spend $1.40 per capita on maternal health. It, however, currently spends only $0.50, a mere 36 percent of the required minimum per capita.

The reality is that at the entrance of any government hospital in Uganda, a woman going to give birth is required to present a plastic sheet, razorblade, cotton wool, gauze and other consumables before she can receive any medical attention. Bribes to medical personnel are the norm, and experiences like Nalubowa’s read like a familiar folktale told over and over again. But can a court ruling turn around the tragic scenario where 5,840 women die in child birth each year? Time will tell.

pakumu@observer.ug

Source: http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18444:feature-maternal-health-case-puts-govt-on-the-spot&catid=34:news&Itemid=114

Secret Hoax Campaign Is Another Abortion Wars Tactic

By Leslie Kantor, MPH, vice president of education for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, senior medical advisor for Planned Parenthood Federations of America (PPFA)

In recent weeks people who oppose Planned Parenthood, and our mission to provide high-quality reproductive health care, have been conducting a secret, nationwide hoax campaign in an attempt to undermine women’s access to services.

For years opponents of reproductive health and rights have used secret videotaping tactics with fictitious patient scenarios and selective editing to promote falsehoods about Planned Parenthood’s mission, services, and policies. Recently, one group has escalated these hoax visits in many states, apparently using secret recorders while inquiring about sex selection abortions. We anticipate that this group, likely in coordination with a broad range of anti-abortion leaders, will soon launch a propaganda campaign with the goal of discrediting Planned Parenthood, and, ultimately, furthering legislation that blocks access to basic reproductive health care, including birth control.

We can expect this propaganda campaign to further escalate the political battles over access to health care, rather than focus on the best ways to help women and their families get the care they need.

As a nonprofit health care provider with nearly 800 health centers, PlannedParenthood provides access to professional, nonjudgmental, affordable reproductive health care, ensuring nearly three million patients receive preventive and lifesaving care every year. Without Planned Parenthood, many women would have nowhere else to turn for breast and cervical cancer screening, well woman exams, birth control, STD testing and treatment, sex education, and pregnancy options.

As a women’s rights advocate for nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood finds the concept of sex selection deeply unsettling. Planned Parenthood does not offer sex determination services; our ultrasound services are limited to medical purposes.

Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for daily in communities across the country. Planned Parenthood opposes racism and sexism in all forms, and we work to advance equity and human rights in the delivery of healthcare. Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias, and urges leaders to challenge the underlying conditions that lead to thesebeliefs and practices, including addressing the social, legal, economic, and political conditions that promote gender bias and lead some to value one gender over the other.

Recent attempts to restrict or deny access to safe abortion under the guise of preventing gender bias is harmful to women’s health, counter to a human rights agenda, and primarily a political tactic of groups who work to make abortion illegal. Planned Parenthood opposes legislation that intrudes on the doctor/patient relationship by requiring doctors to become investigators and patients their suspects, and that strips nonjudgmental, high-quality care from women in need.

The world’s leading women’s health and rights organizations, including the World Health Organization, do not believe that curtailing access to abortion services is a legitimate means of addressing sex selection, and are clear that gender bias can only be resolved by addressing the underlying conditions that lead to it. And we agree. We support efforts that ensure girls and women have access to economic opportunity, including fair wages, basic healthcare, political participation, education, and a life free of violence and discrimination. Planned Parenthood works to ensure women and their familieshave access to high-quality nonjudgmental health services free of coercion,supported by information and counseling.

From the questions that were repeatedly asked in these recent hoax visits, we expect that the materials eventually released will focus on Planned Parenthood’s non-judgmental discussions with the various women who posed aspossible patients. So, we would like to address that subject directly.

Planned Parenthood insists on the highest professional standards, which among other things means we offer nonjudgmental, confidential care in accordance with relevant laws. That doesn’t mean we always agree with the decisions made by people who seek our help, but it does mean that we realize that we can’t know all of the circumstances faced by any patient and that requiring women to justify the care they seek is a dangerous healthcare model for an organization. Four decades ago women in the United States were forced to justify their decision to seek abortion to a panel of doctors, and thankfully we’ve come a long way since then. We provide information that women seek, but ultimately the decision to seek legal abortion is a private one.

Planned Parenthood has extensive guidelines and training requirements for all staff who may encounter difficult or unusual questions, such as those posed by the hoax patients. If a health center learns of an instance where a staff member has not fully followed policies or procedures, swift action is taken to remedy the situation. Our rigorous and ongoing training and quality assurance help identify potential issues, and all health centers respond to any training or personnel needs with professionalism and respect. Planned Parenthood cares about staff, and conducts retraining or other personnel action responsibly.

People rely on Planned Parenthood for accessible and affordable quality care; that’s why one in five women have turned to us at some time in their lives for professional, nonjudgmental, and confidential care, and we value the trust they put in us.

###
Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate nearly 800 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.

Source: plannedparenthood.org

Is Criminalization of HIV Transmission Effective? Swedish Case Reveals Why the Answer Is No

By Marianne Mollmann

Earlier this month, a 31-year-old woman in Sweden was sentenced to one and a half years in prison for having unprotected sex without disclosing to her partner beforehand that she is living with HIV.

Even a perfunctory news search reveals that this is not the first time the Swedish justice system has applied criminal sanctions to potential HIV-transmission. In January, a 20-year-old man was sentenced to eight months in prison for having unprotected sex without disclosing his status. In December 2006, a 34-year-old woman got two months, and in January 2003, a 32-year-old woman one year. All of these sentences also required the person living with HIV to pay monetary damages to their former sex-partners.

For anyone who cares about human rights from a health and discrimination angle, these cases raise multiple red flags.

For starters, consensual sex between consenting adults should, in principle, never be subject to government control or regulation. Moreover, the criminalization of HIV transmission has multiple negative outcomes. It leads to distrust in the health and justice systems; it can discourage people from seeking to know their HIV status; it adds to the stigmatization of those living with HIV; and it is ineffective in bringing down HIV transmission.

In fact, UNAIDS (the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS) recommends that governments limit criminal sanctions for HIV transmission to cases where all of three conditions are met: the person charged 1) knows he or she is living with HIV; 2) acts with the intention of transmitting the virus; and 3) actually transmits it. UNAIDS also recommends that cases of such intentional HIV-transmission should be tried under generic criminal provisions for bodily harm or assault, and not under HIV-specific provisions.

Public health and human rights activists are clear on this. That is why the Swedish Embassy in France was defiled with paint-filled condoms in protest against the 2003 ruling. And that is also why my own reaction to the ruling was to declare it “bad” over twitter, a statement that was re-tweeted several times.

A closer read of the cases highlighted in the Swedish media, however, leads me to reconsider, at least in part.

If the media-accounts are accurate, the Swedish government has, in fact, partially followed UNAIDS recommendations. The convicted individuals all knew their HIV status and the cases were brought under general criminal law provisions on grave assault, physical abuse and attempt to cause physical harm. So far so good.

The two remaining questions — intent and actual transmission — are more difficult to gauge.

Consider this.

In most of the cases, the convicted person either has multiple convictions over several years for the same thing, or the conviction is based on multiple unprotected sexual interactions with different partners without disclosure. It is perhaps valid for prosecutors to ask if, absent proof of intent which is hard to produce, the fact that an individual living with HIV repeatedly and knowingly exposes someone else to a deadly virus shouldn’t count for something.

Further, actual HIV transmission may not be the only harm caused. The 20-year-old convicted man was charged with having unprotected sex with eight women, none of whom ultimately ended up HIV-positive, though they all claimed to have suffered severe emotional trauma as a result of the experience. In cases of domestic violence we often ask prosecutors to consider emotional distress as real harm, so why require actual transmission in order to prove harm in this case?

Then again, consider this.

The 20-year-old man was born HIV-positive and is being charged as an adult also for those unprotected sexual encounters that occurred when he was a teenager. He was initially placed in solitary confinement, seemingly because of his HIV status.

Also, one of the convicted women alleged she had been raped. The male partner produced evidence to the contrary and she later withdrew the allegation. Nevertheless, coercion and fear are highly relevant when it comes to decisions about how and when to disclose HIV status. Research indicates that many women, in fact, are reluctant to disclose their HIV status because they quite legitimately fear abuse.

And with regard to actual harm caused, it is at least possible that the ramped-up attention to the cases have contributed in some part to the severity of the emotional distress of the sex partners.

It is, of course, reckless to knowingly expose anyone to real danger, also through potential HIV-transmission, even if the danger ultimately does not materialize. This is a notion the UNAIDS recommendations to a large extent fail to acknowledge.

But the highly publicized use of the criminal law in Sweden to punish those living with HIV for being timid about their health status does not make it easier for anyone to disclose. So perhaps the real question with regard to any government’s approach to HIV transmission should not be whether it follows UNAIDS recommendations, but rather if it is effective.

An educated guess says not so much.

This article was first published on RHRealityCheck.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-mollmann/is-criminalization-of-hiv-effective_b_1445385.html