Search
Close this search box.

Supreme Court begins hearing appeal to the maternal deaths case as activists call for justice for the plight of mothers

Activists in Kampala representing health, HIV/AIDS, human rights, and women’s organizations have today gathered in Kampala at the Supreme Court of Uganda as a panel of Justices begin hearing a Constitutional appeal against Constitutional Court’s ruling that it could not determine whether by mothers dying in child birth is a violation of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Constitutional Court in 2012 decided that matters brought before it by Center for health Human rights and others, did not fall into its mandate of interpreting the Constitution but a preserve of the Executive and Legislature. The Court termed this as a “Political question doctrine”.

Constitutional appeal No.1 of 2013 argues that the Constitutional court misapplied the “political question doctrine (doctrine of separation of powers) as this doctrine is one that cannot be applied in cases of violation of human rights.

“It’s such an old doctrine that prohibits one branch of government from interfering into work of another branch but this is not applicable to Uganda whose courts have an oversight role of checks and balances. It also doesn’t apply in cases of human rights violations like the one before court” Mulumba Moses, Executive Director, Center for Health, Human rights and Development (CEHURD)

The case, from which this appeal arises, Petition Number 16 of 2011, argued that by not providing essential medical commodities and health services to pregnant women, the Government is violating the Constitutional rights of Ugandans, including the right to health, the right to life, and the rights of women. The Petition highlights the case of Sylvia Nalubowa, a mother in Mityana and of Jennifer Anguko, a mother and District Councilor in Arua, both of whom died in childbirth. Members of the families of the deceased women are also present for the hearing.

Many reports of additional maternal deaths from across Uganda have come to light since the groundbreaking case was filed on 3 March 2011.16 women in Uganda die each day in childbirth!

“We believe justices of the Supreme Court have a role to play in preventing such deaths” Nakibuuka Noor, CEHURD.

Using Human Rights to Realize Access to Safe, Legal Abortion in Uganda

As is the case with many other countries in the Africa region, Ugandan abortion law recognizes that abortion is lawful in given circumstances. Article 22(2) of the Ugandan Constitution in particular, provides that: “No person has the right to terminate the life of an unborn child except as may be authorized by law”. On its part, section 224 of the Penal Code provides for therapeutic abortion.

However, access to safe abortion services even within the boundaries of the law, continues to be a challenge. In 2008, the Ugandan Ministry of Health estimated that unsafe abortion-related mortality constituted up to 26 percent of maternal mortality and that for every woman who died from unsafe abortion, many more women suffered severe and permanent injuries.

This paper explores a human rights framework for implementing domestic abortion law in a way that maximizes access to safe, legal abortion in Uganda. The paper analyses the explicit and implicit provisions of the main laws that regulate abortion in Uganda, including the Constitution (article 22(2)); the Penal Code (sections 141-143; 224); common law; and the country’s reservations on article 14(2)(c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa. Read FULL DISCUSSION PAPER 

Unsafe Abortion takes a Financial Toll on Women, Children and Households: New study

a9A new study conducted by Aparna Sundaram of the Guttmacher Institute and others, “Documenting the Individual and Household-Level Cost of Unsafe Abortion in Uganda,” indicated that Unsafe abortion often takes a considerable financial toll on Ugandan women and their families, resulting in a decline in economic stability and household well-being. Out of the women surveyed, 73% reported that they had lost wages, 60% their children had less to eat, were unable to attend school or both, and 34% experienced a decline in the economic stability of their household. The study furthers shows that on average, Ugandan women paid 59,600 (US$23) shillings for their abortion procedure.

Abortion is restricted in Uganda, but not prohibited as it is permitted to save the life and preserve the health of the pregnant woman, including the mental health. However, stigma, discrimination and misinformation mean most women in need of services as well as health care providers do not have correct information about the legal and environment.

The Center for Health Human Rights and Development ina1 collaboration with the Ministry of Health held a national meeting on February 17 2014 to share data and research about the impact of unsafe abortion in Uganda, increase awareness about the legal and policy framework in Uganda, recruit additional public champions in the struggle to reduce maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion, and finally to agree on prevention interventions all partners; legal, service providers, government, religious leaders, among others can take to reduce maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion.

101_0774The meeting was attended by Hon. Minister of state for health in charge of primary health care Sarah Opendi, others officials from the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Justice, Members of Parliament, Professional medical bodies, professional health workers, and community based organizations, religious leaders, cultural leaders, legal organizations, human rights organizations, and academics.

According to the executive director of the Center for Health, Human Rights and Development, Mr. Moses Mulumba, these findings make clear that more must be done to reduce unintended pregnancy by ensuring that Ugandan women have access to family planning services. Mr Mulumba, added that, accurate information on contraception and high-quality services must be made available as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed rights to allow women to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Young and poor women in particular need access to these services.

Hon. Sarah Opendi was concerned by the fact that abortion is third on the list of major killers of pregnant mothers after haemorrhage and infections. She added that, there are lots of media reports about girls carrying out abortions leaving a question of what happens to men who impregnate these girls. Hon. Opendi also said, reducing maternal mortality is very important as this is also well reflected in the millennium development goals (MDG 5).

a2By the end of the meeting, participants had agreed that it is important to have a well-defined legal framework on abortion, to have research findings taken back to communities for members of the communities to know exactly how the situation is, Ministry of Health to get legal assistance from members of parliament on how to go about the existing guidelines, to increase sensitization of the existing guidelines on safe abortion, and to have the unmet need of contraception reduced

High Court starts hearing a case on access to Patient information; Civil Suit No.212 of 2013

PRESS RELEASE: January 20, 2014

For more information, contact: Nakibuuka Noor Musisi, CEHURD, +256782496681

The High Court starts the hearing of a case on access to Patient information; Civil Suit No.212 of 2013

The Center for Health, Human rights and Development (CEHURD) together with Mubangizi Micheal and Musimenta Jennifer filed a human rights case against the Executive Director of Mulago National Referral Hospital and the Attorney General in the High Court for Violation of fundamental human rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda of 1995.

The plaintiffs state that by denying the couple access to their medical records, opportunity to nurture and bring up their child, taking away their child without permission coupled with the daily mental anguish and agony they are going through because of denial to access their child or its body is a violation of their Constitutional rights and the defendants are answerable.

“I gave birth to two girls, but I was only given one. I was denied my child or its body. I requested for my medical records but they refused to give me a copy. I am traumatized and psychologically tortured every day of my life every time I look at my other child. I know my child isn’t dead, she is alive. I am afraid of giving birth in hospitals”, says Musimenta Jennifer, the mother to the missing child.

With the uncertainty as to the whereabouts of their Child or its body, the Couple tirelessly searched for their child but only to be given a fresh body after three days. They resorted to undertaking a DNA test which revealed that the child was not related to any of them.

“I searched for my child in the entire Mulago hospital for three days but I failed to discover my child or his/her body. I was only called after the three days and given a fresh body of the child. I looked at the body but I was sure that this was not my child since the body was fresh. I requested for a copy of mortuary records to see when the record of the body of my alleged child was made but they did not give any, despite several requests. I decided to report the matter to police which advised me to undertake a DNA test. This test revealed that the components were negative. I approached CEHURD to file a Human rights case for the human rights violations my family suffered and we are still going through” Says Mubangizi Michael, father to the lost child.

Access to patient information is a key component of the right to health. Although the legal and policy framework in Uganda allows access to patient information and the Ministry of Health has developed good policies such as the Patients Charter, access to patient information is still illusory. A considerable number of patients visiting health facilities have been denied access to their health information and most of these cases go unnoticed since the patients are not aware of their rights guaranteed under the Constitution and Regional and International Human Rights Instruments, says Mulumba Moses, the Executive Director of CEHURD.

We believe that the Judiciary has a critical role to play to cub these violations and we hope the parties will get justice.

Advocating for Access to Pain Treatment

By Mugisa Martha
More than 50 years ago, the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was adopted by the United Nations (UN) member states, declaring the medical use of narcotic drugs indispensable for the relief of pain and mandating an adequate provision of narcotic drugs for medical use. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), charged with monitoring the implementation of the UN drug conventions, clarified in 1995 that the Convention ‘establishes a dual drug control obligation: to ensure adequate availability of narcotic drugs, including opiates, for medical and scientific purposes, while at the same time preventing illicit production of, trafficking in and use of such drug’.

Pain medications such as morphine and codeine have been added to the list of essential drugs by World Health Organization in its Model List of Essential Medicines. Other international bodies, such as the UN Economic and Social Council and the World Health Assembly, have also called on countries to ensure adequate availability of opioid analgesics. Despite this lucid consensus that pain treatment medications should be available, approximately 80% of the world population has either no, or insufficient, access to treatment for moderate to severe pain.

Worldwide there is unequal distribution of pain medical treatments. Much of these medications are consumed by the greater north and a lesser percentage by the south which consumes only 6%. Myriad reasons have been advanced as barriers to access to pain treatment globally which include the failure of governments to put in place functioning drug supply systems, the failure to enact policies on pain treatment and palliative care, poor training of healthcare workers, the existence of unnecessarily restrictive drug control regulations and practices, fear among healthcare workers of legal sanctions for legitimate medical practice; and the unnecessarily high cost of pain treatment.

These reasons have had and continuously impact on the right to the highest Standard of physical and mental health and the freedom from cruel, inhuman degrading treatment or punishment that is inherent to all. One of the most major causes of suffering and disability in the world is chronic pain. Pain whether chronic or not has a profound effect on the quality of life and can have physical, psychological and social consequences. It can lead to reduced mobility and a consequent loss of strength, compromise the immune system and interfere with a person’s ability to eat, concentrate, sleep, or interact with others.

Pain relief medications were initially reserved for cancer patients who experience severe pain in the advanced stages as well as HIV/AIDS patients. However, a much wider cycle of health conditions has evolved in need of pain relief medications such as renal diseases, cardiac vascular diseases, kidney related illnesses, epilepsy and diabetes to mention but a few. And as such there is greater need for access to pain relief medications to prevent and relief pain.

Worldwide, Uganda, Jordan and Columbia have been considered as model examples for the provision of palliative care services that seek to prevent and relieve pain and other physical, psychosocial and spiritual problems. In Uganda sixty one districts are currently receiving a home based palliative care service which is a good step towards access to pain relief medication.  In addition, the government has put in place undergraduate and postgraduate programs aimed at training nurses to administer the pain relief medications particularly morphine. Though in its initial stages, the programs are attracting a number of participants in different countries.

While National Drug Policy and Authority Act Chapter 206 of Uganda places morphine as one of the classified narcotic drugs only to be administered and distributed by those authorized to do so under the Act, the Ministry of Health guided by the Act developed guidelines under which morphine as a drug could be administered by specialized nurses in palliative care from the previous restrictions of a medical doctor

Even with the wide distribution of Palliative care services in the country and the various initiatives taken by the government to provide access to pain relief medications, only 10% of the Uganda population has access to the service. This is mainly due to a number of challenges. For example the procedure that a patient and their attendants have to go through to acquire the medicine.  Patients are required to have a prescription from medical personnel qualifying them as candidates for morphine use yet there is little awareness of palliative care services. These and many more pose a threat to access to pain relief medications hence denying a patient the right to health and freedom from cruel or ill- treatment.

The right to the highest standard of physical and mental health is inherent to all.  And such as governments are obligated to protect, respect and fulfil their obligations under the international human rights instruments. The right calls upon governments to provide medical services such as access to pain relief medication despite the limited resources to all specifically the vulnerable populace. It is therefore the duty of the government to ensure that there are policies and laws in place that enable access to pain relief medications. It is a right to pain relief.