By Avako Specioza

The pains of child birth and child theft are altogether different from the persistent effects of all the other kinds of pains. While the new born baby brings such great joy which is the entire cure a mother needs after pains of child birth. There is no such cure for child theft.
It is tragic that many women in Uganda still die from preventable maternal deaths. It is equally unjustifiable that when women survive the pains of child birth in public facilities, some mothers go home without their babies.

It is unfortunate that maternal health is a field which has been ignored and not given the special attention it deserves. Over the past years, many women who walked into Mulago National Referral Hospital complained of child theft after birth. Baby theft in Mulago National Referral Hospital has become a norm which violates essential human rights and touches the very epitome of motherhood and womanhood.

The lost twin story is one of such cases where a baby disappeared from Mulago hospital. On 14th March 2012, Musimenta Jennifer went to Mulago National Referral Hospital and delivered two babies, however she was discharged with only one baby. The couple was not satisfied and reported their issue to the police. Mulago Hospital eventually told them that their second child had been born dead and in fact availed them a dead baby three days later. The couple not being satisfied with the turn of events carried out a DNA on the dead baby availed to them. Their fears were affirmed that they had no biological connection with the availed baby. In 2013, the Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) on behalf of the Musimenta and her spouse Mubangizi Michel filed a case against Mulago National Referral Hospital in the High Court of Kampala stating that Mulago hospital had violated of the right to health, access to information, freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment among others.

Hon. Lady Justice Lydia Mugambe gave judgement on the 24th of January 2017 pronounced court’s decision in regards to “the lost baby case.” (“Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD), Mubangizi Michael and Musimenta Jennifer versus the Executive Director of Mulago National Referral Hosiptal and Attorney General of Uganda Civil Suit No 212 of 2013”) and set powerful jurisprudence on the right to health, human rights and the need for systemic change within Mulago Hospital.

In her Judgement, Lady Justice Lydia Mugambe asserted in paragraph 54 ;
“…As an African couple, the plaintiffs were denied an opportunity to carry out burial rituals for their child, who in my view would have constituted a fundamental part of their healing process. These plaintiffs have been denied the opportunity to have closure in-regard to their baby. By denying them the opportunity to bury their baby, the defendants (Mulago) compounded their pain and subjected them to more psychological torture. Clearly this violated their right to health and freedom from torture as enumerated in legal instruments…”

Lady Justice Mugambe stated that Ms. Musimenta and Mr. Mubangizi had been subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and psychological torture by the hospital and that their right to health and access to information about their dead child were violated. She accordingly ordered the police to conclusively investigate the disappearance of the baby, the midwife who handled the baby at birth should be held accountable. She ordered Mulago hospital to take steps to ensure and enhance the respect, movement and safety of babies in the facility, dead or alive. Mulago hospital was ordered to make written reports every four months regarding steps taken and CEHURD was given free access to the hospital to oversee implementation measures, and the parties were awarded general damages of up to eighty five million Ugandan shillings.

What does the Mulago judgment mean for Uganda? This judgment emphasises the rights of newborns and sets a stand for the treatment of patients in all health facilities in the country while for Mulago hospital it means there is need for the facility to change the way in which they handle babies, the dead, mothers and also the need to improve staffing at the hospital. This judgement is an eye opener to all Ugandans and health workers of the need to provide quality health services to our mothers, babies, the vulnerable and all patients in the public facilities.

The Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) in partnership with the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) is implementing an advocacy program titled, “Integrating Legal Empowerment and social accountability for Quality HIV Health services for AGYW,” commonly known as the DREAMS PROJECT in the districts of Gomba and Mukono.

The project  which is aimed at improving access to quality HIV/AIDS related services for Adolescent Girls and Young Women (AGYW), will utilize an innovative blend of legal empowerment and social accountability strategies (LE/SA+).

In order to have effective implementation of the project, CEHURD held meetings with stakeholders from the two districts of Gomba and Mukono to launch the project prior to implementation.

The project is implemented in sub- counties of Kyampisi and Kasawo as well as Kanoni and Kyegonza in Mukono and Gomba respectively. The implementation among others seeks to strengthen the capacity of communities to hold duty bearers accountable for improved quality of HIV/AIDS related services among Adolescent Girls and Young Women as well as the community at large.

The Center for Health Human Rights and Development is among the Organizations under EQUINET; the Regional Network on Equity in Health in East and Southern Africa, which is a network of professionals, civil society members, policy makers, state officials and others within the region who have come together as an equity catalyst, to promote and realise shared values of equity and social justice in health.

Please find the EQUINET latest Newsletter HERE.

The Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) working through  the Coalition to Stop Maternal Mortality due to Unsafe Abortion (CSMMUA) hosted their counterparts from Tanzania; the Coalition to Address Maternal Mortality and Morbidity due to Unsafe Abortion and its Complications (CAMMAC) at Metropole Hotel in Kampala. The meeting aimed at acquainting the two institutions with the work done while addressing issues of morbidity and mortality deaths due to unsafe abortion in the respective countries.

The discussions ranged from sharing an overview of CSMMUA’s constitution, strategic objectives, challenges, and next steps; the key advocacy opportunities and process to leverage identified included: the EAC SRHR Bill, Constitutional Petition No. 10 of 2017, Miscellaneous Application No.309/2016, Reinstatement of the S&Gs and The Global Gag Rule, among others.

The CAMMAC team was given the opportunity to share key achievements, challenges they face and lessons learnt since the coalition’s inception in 2014. This was an opportunity for the Ugandan team to learn best practices that can be adopted in carrying out advocacy.

In Uganda, unsafe abortion was found to be the second and in some cases the highest contributor to preventable maternal mortality in Uganda (MoH, 2012) . An estimated 314,304 Ugandan women risked their life and health by in- ducing an abortion, a 7% increase in the 2003 estimate of 294,000 – meaning that more than 1 in 10 pregnancies end in abortion.

By Mr. David Kabanda.

Tobacco is a leading cause of preventable death globally. After realizing this ‘pandemic’, the World Health Organization adopted the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) treaty on May 21, 2003.This became one of the most quickly ratified treaties in the United Nations history. The FCTC seeks to “protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke” by enacting a set of universal standards stating the dangers of tobacco and limiting its use in all forms worldwide.The treaty’s provisions include rules that govern the production, sale, distribution, advertisement and taxation of tobacco. FCTC standards are, however, minimum requirements, and signatories are encouraged to be even more stringent in regulating tobacco.

Kenya signed and ratified this treaty in 2004, and the guidelines for the implementation of the convention, while Uganda signed the same in 2004 but ratified it in 2007.

Tobacco use is associated with increased risk of several cancers. It is the single most preventable cause of death in the world. Tobacco smoking caused an estimated 27 per cent of all cancer deaths in 2015. Active smoking and environmental tobacco smoke cause 19 per cent of all cancer cases each year.

In 2015, British American Tobacco’s Kenyan subsidiary filed a High court civil suit claiming that Kenya’s Tobacco Control regulations were unconstitutional. The court ruled in favour of health, and the tobacco industry appealed. On appeal, again court ruled against the tobacco company; it upheld nearly all elements of the regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including a two per cent annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation; graphic health warnings; ingredient disclosure; smoke-free environments in public places; disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.

These same provisions are in Uganda’s Tobacco Control Act of 2015.

The court of appeal in Kenya discussed at length the importance of implementing the WHO FCTC, concluding that the implementation of the convention or the guidelines was not in conflict with the Constitution or national legislation on tobacco control.

The court, while throwing out BAT’s claims, considered the overall constitutional and social context in which the allegations of violation were made. It emphasised the need to balance the rights of the petitioner against the rights of others. It considered the rights of those people who want to trade in tobacco, those who want to smoke, therefore consumers of tobacco products, and the general public exposed to tobacco products.

Every Ugandan has a right to a clean and healthy environment. This is not only provided for in the Constitution but also in the Tobacco Control Act 2015. It is also our in law that, in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. It was also considered that BAT’s argument of being a heavy taxpayer is diluted by the fact that what it pays in taxes is cancelled out by the fact that the health sector uses up to three times the amount to mop up the negative effects of tobacco use. BAT was told to be alive to the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

BAT has not denied that tobacco products have negative effects on the consumers and on innocent persons who become passive smokers by inhaling second-hand smoke. Therefore, there are public health needs that have to be balanced against the intellectual property rights of tobacco industry.

The appellate court discussed that BAT is in a peculiar position as its products have already been associated with a multitude of serious diseases as well as posing serious health risks to the partakers of the tobacco products and the addictive nature of the products.

Because of this, the tobacco industry cannot be compared to manufacturers of other products; the state is under obligation to protect the health of its citizens, both consumers and non- consumers of tobacco.

The court concluded that the ill effects of tobacco products cannot even be equated with the threat of terrorism. This ruling sent a strong message that BAT’s legal claims are without merit and that tobacco industry interference in laws to improve public health will not be tolerated.

Sourse: http://www.observer.ug/viewpoint/52495-tobacco-s-ill-effects-surpass-terrorists-threats.html