Thousands of women bleed to death after giving birth. Most die in their homes. Some die on the way to hospital; in taxis, on motorbikes or on foot. In Sierra Leone, less than half of deliveries are attended by a skilled birth attendant and less than one in five are carried out in health facilities.
I noted there were two comments at the bottom, but that the opportunity to leave any further notes was closed. The first comment is as follows, with only the name removed:
29 SEPTEMBER 2009, 11:22AM
Thank you for this article about thousands of women who bleed to death after giving birth in Sierra Leone. I fully agree with you that the issue of maternal mortality is not only a health care issue. It’s about human rights of women and families living in poverty in Africa. By the way, I truly believe that this is a matter of a reliable transportation in Africa. The non-profit I am working with as an international business developer (Institute for Affordable Transportation) addresses the cycle of poverty by providing local people with a reliable transportation - Basic Utility Vehicle designed for developing countries. Please visit our web site at www.drivebuv.org to see how we help break the cycle of poverty. Again, thank you for thinking about human rights of those living in poverty. Good luck in everything you do!
Nothing overly objectionable about this, and an indication of support for what organisations are trying to do for mothers and babies and their families. The only thing that vaguely disturbed me was the slight hint of advertising involved in the promotion of the Basic Utility Vehicle. But it would enable health workers to get to patients, to mothers in labour, so would obviously be a useful tool for delivering healthcare to Sierra Leone. And the comment revealed an understanding, or at least an acknowledgement, of the multiple issues involved in maternal deaths: poverty, status of women, human rights generally, health care, transport etc.
However, the second comment (which actually appears above the first) caused some disquiet, and then anger:
29 SEPTEMBER 2009, 01:55PM
Providing transportation for medical needs is a crucial element to preventive health care in developing countries. Healthcare is more of a privilege than a right in my opinion. Yes, the BUV mentioned in the previous comment is a valuable asset much like Riders that provides motorcycles for health workers. The BUV Ministry at www.drivebuv.org does offer a valuable and viable solution for this need. There is a brochure on this site under BUV Solutions - titled BUV and Medical Missions.
'Healthcare is more of a privilege than a right in my opinion'. I am glad the person who wrote this comment at least expressed it as his opinion. I disagree with this opinion, in the strongest possible terms. Health care is not a privilege, but a basic right; a right that millions of people are denied because they're poor. The women in Sierra Leone who die in pregnancy or childbirth have a right to proper health care to save their lives, and the lives of their babies, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it. A mother haemorrhaging or in obstructed labour is not going to wait until she can somehow earn money to pay for obstetric care that will save her life and the life of her child. She needs that care immediately.
And whether you're rich or poor, in whatever country you live, if you are diagnosed with a dangerous infection or a malignancy, or any serious illness, you need treatment and care right away, not in a few months when you've saved up for it. Illness waits for no ideology.
To write of health care being a privilege after reading an article about women dying in childbirth in Sierra Leone is to somehow be divorced utterly from humanity.
When I look up the organisation mentioned that provides the innovative transport, I note that it is faith-based. It provides a valuable means for people to improve their lives, which is wonderful, but do they also evangelise? Do the poor have to pay for their poverty by having someone else's religion thrust upon them? I think it inappropriate in the 21st century that people seeking help from poverty, disease and death be subject to such evangelism. Unless, of course, they choose it freely, and are not denied help if they choose in the negative.
I discover that the two people who left the comments on the Amnesty website are, in fact, both associated with the organisation providing the BUV. Somehow, their words take on the less savoury tone of self-promotion of their own interests, be they religious or other.
Meanwhile, mothers and babies keep dying in Sierra Leone. Good on Amnesty International for bringing these issues to the light, and for striving to do something about them.
