Opinion
Saving Uganda’s newborn babies – more of the same is not enough
Publish Date: Apr 15, 2014
newvision
  • mail
  • img

By Dr. Peter Waiswa

The other day while visiting Sweden a friend of mine told me he has six children; among these was one his family was expecting in four months. I wondered how he could count a pregnancy to be a baby.

In Uganda many women know that they cannot count a pregnancy to be a baby or indeed whether the mother will survive pregnancy because of a weak health care system.

In many Ugandan communities, the pregnancy is called ekintu or a thing, and babies are not named until one month when survival is more assured.

In other words, Ugandans do not trust the system in which women become pregnant, give birth or in which babies are born and nurtured.
 

As we move to the end of the Millennium Development Goals, we see that Uganda has reduced death of children before five years by about 40% which is commendable.

However, almost one in three of the children who die do so before five years die in the first month of life, the neonatal period, and of these, the majority die on the day of birth.

In Uganda, we lose 69,000 babies per year or about 39,000 deaths and another 30,000 stillbirths. For most of the so called stillbirths, the woman actually starts labour when the baby is alive, but dies during the process because of poor quality health services.  In other words, our performance as a country on the care at the time of birth is dismal.

Global newborn specialists recently estimated that at the current rate of reduction in death, it will take an African newborn about 155 years to have the same survival chance as those in the richest countries a century before, yet now we have new interventions. This is unacceptable in the modern era.
 

Child deaths have reduced for a number of reasons including immunisation, malaria control efforts, and access to care including use of the private sector, improvements in water access and hygiene, and general improvement in the standard of living.

However, most of these interventions cannot help a woman in labour or a newly born sick baby. What they need is high quality care during and immediately after labour, and this should be provided by skilled and motivated health workers working in an environment which can save mothers.
 

Unfortunately, the current policies and programmes in Uganda prioritise survival of older children and not newborns. For instance, whereas policies allow older children to be treated at all levels including being treated by village health team members and health workers at health centre II; it is the contrary for newborn babies, despite their extreme vulnerability.
 

The current policy does not allow important drugs, equipment, and skills for newborn babies to be availed at these lower levels of health care, and yet it is these that are most accessible.

Instead, the policy recommends referral for sick newborns to higher levels, something our own research shows does not work.

A sick newborn can die in minutes or a few hours, if quality care is not provided immediately. More so, our Ugandan programmes that are donor driven have in the past two decades prioritised vertical programmes related to malaria and HIV/AIDS and maternal and newborn health was forgotten.

Uganda now has an ambitious “sharpened” reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health plan but its implementation modalities are not clear.

As a country, we must use science to drive policies and programmes. Newborn health constitutes the highest burden of disease, and must receive the policy, programme, funding and advocacy response it needs.
 

The writer is a lecturer at Makerere University and a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

The statements, comments, or opinions expressed through the use of New Vision Online are those of their respective authors, who are solely responsible for them, and do not necessarily represent the views held by the staff and management of New Vision Online.

New Vision Online reserves the right to moderate, publish or delete a post without warning or consultation with the author.Find out why we moderate comments. For any questions please contact digital@newvision.co.ug

  • mail
  • img
blog comments powered by Disqus
Also In This Section
Ugandans in arrears of rational voting
Come 2016, Uganda voters should flash ‘Red Cards’ to the MPs who have merely acted as rubber stamps and those who just oppose everything and propose nothing....
The trouble with universal education
With the deadline for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals fast approaching, the world is gearing up to establish a new set of goals for the next 15 years....
Put on hold taxes on agro inputs and equipment
I find the government’s proposed tax on agro inputs and equipment inconsistent with its policy position to modernise agriculture and fight rural poverty....
Ministry of health needs to re-visit its policy decision on Health Centre IIs
The Government of Uganda through the Ministry of Health has recently issued a policy statement which stops the establishment of more Health Centre IIs in the country....
Uganda Foreign Missions websites a disaster
Whenever I travel outside Uganda, people always ask me three questions; how is President Idi Amin? How is HIV/AIDs infection rate in Uganda?...
When fewer is better
Is a shrinking population always a bad thing? To be sure, an aging population poses obvious challenges for pension systems....
Will strict traffic laws reduce road accidents?
Yes
No
Can't Say
follow us
subscribe to our news letter