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

Kenya generic HIV drugs court ruling sets precedent for Uganda

Henry Zakumumpa

Thousands of people living with HIV and AIDS in East Africa were given new hope last week (25 April 2012), when a High Court judge in Nairobi ruled that Kenya’s anti counterfeit law is unconstitutional in its interpretation of generic HIV drugs as illegal counterfeits.

A generic drug is an identical copy of a brand name, the latter of which are usually manufactured by pharmaceutical giants. Brand drugs such as those manufactured by Pfizer and Norvatis go for prices tailored to Western markets and thus are unaffordable for the majority of patients in sub Saharan Africa. However, many can afford Indian generics, which cost as little as a tenth of the brand price.

Generic drug manufacturers such as CIPLA of India imitate the exact formulas used in brand antiretrovirals (ARVs) drugs through a process called ‘reverse engineering’. The drugs are understood to be as effective as the brand names.

Justice Mumbi Ngugi ruled that intellectual property rights do not override the right to life and health. She found the definition of a ‘counterfeit’ in the Kenya Anti-Counterfeit Act of 2008 to be too broad leading to generic HIV drugs being bundled together with other counterfeits. Justice Mumbi said this vagueness is posing a grave threat to the right to life and health for thousands of Kenyans who depend on life-saving generic ARVs.

The High Court judge has now instructed the Kenyan parliament to review the Anti Counterfeit Act of 2008 and amend the offending articles, which can lead to arbitrary seizures of generic HIV drugs under the pretext that they are ‘counterfeits’, as happened at a Dutch port last year.

Under common law, a high court ruling in Kenya sets a precedent for countries such as Uganda and it is now thought that human rights activists in Uganda and the rest of East Africa will invoke the ruling in any potential suits.

The news will also comes as a welcome development for Ugandan pharmaceutical companies such as the Quality Chemicals Plant in Luzira, most of whose products are generic drugs

While testifying before a Ugandan parliamentary committee last month, Moses Mulumba, a human rights lawyer and intellectual property rights expert, revealed that the Uganda Counterfeit Bill 2010 regards generic AIDS drugs as ‘counterfeits’ and would render 90 % of HIV drugs in Uganda illegal should the bill be passed by parliament and assented to by President Museveni.

With efforts to deepen East African regional integration taking centre stage, the Kenya High Court ruling becomes even more instructive for Uganda and the rest of members of the East African community (EAC).

“A vast majority of people in Kenya rely on quality generic drugs for their daily survival. Through this important ruling, the High Court of Kenya has upheld a fundamental element of the right to health,” said UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibé.

“This decision will set an important precedent for ensuring access to life-saving drugs around the world.”

“The court has correctly interpreted the Constitution and guaranteed the right to health. This ruling speaks against any ambiguity that serves to undermine access to generic medicines and puts the lives of people before profit”, Patricia Asero, one of the three petitioners, was quoted as saying.

Last week also marked the successful passage of the East Africa HIV/AIDS Prevention and Management Bill 2012 by the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA), a timely milestone as the assembly’s term of office expires in June this year.

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