STRENGTH OF A WOMAN
By: Sheila Ekinoum
Strength, resilience, and perseverance. These adjectives especially ring true when describing black and particularly African women. True to the latter, last week the media incessantly reported on the case of a woman from Baraka village who swam through turbulent waters in Tana River County in a bid to give birth in a health facility. Words like amazing, remarkable, and brave were highlighted in the news and used to craft the picture of a heroine who defied all odds to overcome adversity. However, this article begs to differ.
The popular narrative of strong African women has been repeated, replayed, and inherited by generations so much so that it has been normalized as a phrase of praise, and to some extent it is. However, for the most part, it has been weaponized and works detrimentally to the well-being of women. This is especially accurate in the health care system, a classic example being J. Marion Sims An American gynecologist from the 19th century who was infamous for using crude methods to experiment on black enslaved women without anesthesia.
Expectedly, he was exalted for his brilliant achievement in developing a treatment for fistula while the horrid pain and anguish he repeatedly put these women through went utterly unacknowledged. It comes as no surprise that these injustices have been carried forward to the present day seeing as black women receive far less pain medication due to their perceived high tolerance to pain.
Back home, applauding the lady from Tana River for surmounting such an impossible feat of swimming the length of a deathly river in order to have access to proper health care, plays right into this primitive and dangerous narrative that forces women to accept and accede to deplorable living standards. In reality, if this case were to be scrutinized and assessed through an unbiased lens it would be as clear as day that we are barking the wrong tree.
The right to health is a widely recognized and decorated human right. The right has been codified in international and regional legal instruments and adopted under domestic laws. The first notion of the right to health under international law is found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was unanimously proclaimed by the UN General Assembly as a common standard for all humanity.
In Article 25, the Declaration sets forth the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including medical care and the right to security in the event of sickness, disability, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
In the same breadth, Kenya has embraced its duty under international law by making constitutional provisions and legislation with respect to the said right. Article 43 of the Constitution avers that every person has a right to the highest attainable standard of health, which includes the right to health care services, including reproductive health care.
But what is reproductive health? The concept of reproductive health is not in and of itself a component of the right to health per se but is rather considered a freedom associated with the right. It is termed as a right to control one’s health and body including reproductive freedom.
Interestingly, in the international legal sphere, there is currently no hard law instrument defining reproductive health. The phrase reproductive health has only recently been incorporated into international legal discourse. Ironically, CEDAW, the only convention to specifically deal with women’s issues, discusses reproductive rights in various contexts yet never uses the phrase reproductive health. The rationale is that this freedom has no explicit basis and its inclusion is purely on the basis that it is necessary to ensure the effective enjoyment of the right to health.
The Cairo Programme of Action is a soft law instrument that upholds and interprets existing human rights standards, particularly in relation to sexual and reproductive health. It recognizes that reproductive health encompasses reproductive rights which rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.
Looking back home, the Health Act in section 6 provides that every person has a right to reproductive health care which includes the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable parents to go safely through pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period, and provide parents with the best chance of having a healthy infant. In this context, it seems that Sadia Mohamud was denied her guaranteed constitutional right to appropriate reproductive health care as she was put in an almost impossible position of having to swim across a river while expectant and due for delivery, putting her at risk of losing her life and that of her unborn child.
Consequently, this works counterintuitively to the state’s obligation to implement the substantive obligations embodied within the right to health as clarified by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in General Comment 14 that is the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill.
The resultant consequences are inconceivable seeing as the maternal mortality rate in Kenya has remained unacceptably high at around 488 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in some areas recording 1000 deaths per 100,000 live births. Indeed, Sadia Mohammed may have been an exception to the rule but the statistics on maternal mortality and morbidity are incontrovertible, and instead of exalting the suffering of vulnerable women by magnifying their strength, this isolated incident ought to serve as a clarion call to rally the powers that be to step up and fulfill their mandate to their citizens.
