Dear Editor,
I am deeply dismayed by the facts reported in relation to the death of Vonette Husler’s baby boy following an emergency caesarean section, and still more dismayed by the response of the Minister of Health, Dr Bheri Ramsaran (as reported in SN of June 10), which I find grossly insensitive and somewhat ostrich-like in character. The Minister assures us (and Ms Husler) that the infant mortality figures are not alarming since they are on a par with last year’s. But surely, if far too many babies died last year because of negligence, we can hardly congratulate ourselves if we manage to negligently dispatch the same number this year!
Indeed, the recent upsurge of cases of maternal and infant deaths prompted me to check some comparative statistics online (Index Mundi). I discovered that a woman is three times more likely to die in childbirth in Guyana than in Jamaica, four times more likely to die than if she has her baby in Trinidad. A woman having a baby in Guyana is twenty times more likely to die than one having a baby in the UK. Babies born in Jamaica or Suriname are twice as likely as those born in Guyana to reach their first birthday. Those are not statistics for us to be proud of. Instead of measuring our performance in 2012 against that of 2011 and giving ourselves a pat on the back, we surely should be comparing our health care with that of countries in the region, and learning what we can do to improve.
The report of Ms Vonette Husler’s labour and delivery, and of the subsequent death of her baby raises many questions about maternity care. Dr Ramsaran eagerly jumped to the defence of the Georgetown Public Hospital, which he praised as “doing a great job.” I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But my own experiences of the institution cause me to take that statement with more than a pinch of salt.
Surely it would be more helpful if the Minister of Health, instead of circling the wagons in this way, were to demand answers to a few questions. For me, these come to mind immediately: Had Ms Husler received ante-natal care, given that her previous pregnancy had ended in a c-section? Was she advised (as appears to be the case) that she would need an elective c-section this time around? If so, where did things go wrong? Is it true that nurses taunted her for telling them that she understood she should be having a c-section? And if the nursing staff did indeed demonstrate this type of attitude, what is being done to change their approach? Why was a woman with a history of a previous c-section allowed to be in prolonged labour when surely a trial of labour under careful medical supervision was the most she should have undergone? Do her medical records show that her pelvic structure would have been capable of allowing the passage of such a large baby? Were any such measurements done? (After all, the patient’s age suggests that this was a case requiring close monitoring.) What kind of neo-natal care was given to the baby?
Ms Husler produced an unusually large baby. Before she left the hospital, was there follow-up screening for incipient diabetes? If not, that is further indication of negligence.
The public is fully aware that GPH receives many high risk cases. This should not have been one of them. In the 21st century an elective c-section is not deemed to be a high risk procedure. Without information beyond what I read in the media, I can only raise questions, not come to conclusions. However, it seems to me that the Minister has avoided the issue. The issue is: should a woman with a history of a previous c-section have been allowed to go into labour at all, let alone to continue in labour for three days? Should she not have been listed for an elective c-section?
I myself am a mother of three and a grandmother of six, and my profound sympathy goes out to Ms Husler on the loss of her little son.
Yours faithfully,
Joyce Jonas
