Letter of the Day | Health minister’s response is baffling
Published:Saturday | November 5, 2022 | 12:06 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Every single life is very precious. And any spike in neonatal deaths is of grave concern. Minister of Health and Wellness Dr Christopher Tufton recently declared that this current ‘dead baby crisis’ is different from the one in 2015. In a sense there is a glaring difference. The former Minister of Health Dr Fenton Ferguson, when he became aware, made the information public and the current minister chose to concealed it. But in both cases, there would have been the natural disappointment, pain and even anguish felt by many because these were all babies, human beings who had lost their lives. In neither case should ever be regarded as just another ‘outlier’; the term used by the health minister, as reported in the Sunday Gleaner of October 30.
Given that infant mortality rate is one of the key indicators of public health worldwide, should any spike in neonatal deaths be seen as vital public knowledge or should it be concealed like some state secret?
The health minister declared there was no attempt at a cover-up; while acknowledging he learnt that whatever more than one person know is not a secret. Which is quite true. Hence one of the reasons I am baffled is that the minister remained silent when he became aware and did not make a preemptive strike by informing and reassuring the public regarding this disturbing development; rather than risk its revelation and dissemination with distortion from ill-informed sources. Public health is driven by public confidence and trust and any refusal or reluctance to timely provide information which is in the public’s interest can create suspicion and speculation and even erode public confidence and trust.
In all fairness and commendations to the health minister – as reported, measures were taken promptly to effectively manage the situation and the Pan American Health Organization was invited to conduct investigations. And the minister’s stated rationale for withholding vital information was to prevent public panic and hysteria. But Cabinet, the highest decision-making body of the land, was also not informed.
Given the health minister’s rationale for withholding this critical information was to prevent public panic and the fact that the Cabinet was also kept in the dark: Should we, therefore, conclude that Dr Tufton possibly had similar concerns regarding his Cabinet colleagues? It is baffling, yes, baffling indeed.
DAIVE FACEY