As controversy surrounding the Health Bill that parliament is currently debating rages on, we are inclined to advise the Minister of Health Reverend Dr John Seakgosing to withdraw and defer it in order to allow further public consultation before its passed into law.
This is especially so given the serious misgivings and reservations raised by concerned stakeholders like the Botswana Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (BONELA).
As much as we acknowledge that the Health Act of 1973 is old and outdated, we caution that the issues raised by BONELA are very serious and warrant further scrutiny before the Bill is rushed and passed into law in the current session of parliament.
Some of the issues raised, particularly those on privacy which are on the face of it ultra vires the Constitution must be attended to.
The clauses that seek to empower medical practitioners to force patients to undergo HIV/AIDS tests without their consent and knowledge are scary, to say the least, and could be a serious violation of patients’ rights and civil liberties.
That the Bill further seeks medical practitioners to report patients who test HIV positive to the Director of Health Services is no doubt a serious breach of confidentiality that the envisaged health law should never entertain.
BONELA notes in a press statement that some of the Bill’s provisions have no place in a democratic and modern day Botswana in that patients due for surgical or dental procedure can be required to undergo an HIV test before the procedure.
The non-governmental organization further argues that the rationale for forcing patients to take HIV tests or testing patients for the virus without seeking their consent is not provided for in the Bill.
“Despite it being unacceptable, it can be abused by curious doctors. The wisdom of that is unknown. Essentially, the two foregoing provisions throw the right to privacy which is entrenched in our Constitution out of the window”, states the BONELA press statement.
It is reported that the Bill further seeks to force people living with HIV to tell whomsoever they have sexual relations with about their HIV status and BONELA argues that the provision is regressive in that it undermines the value of knowing one’s status.
BONELA rightly points out that emphasis should be on promoting safe sex by all, irrespective of whether one knows their status or not.
It is also frightening that the Bill empowers doctors to tell their patient’s sexual partner their HIV status without their consent.
The Bill also seeks to limit the right to freedom of movement for HIV persons and that HIV persons may be detained and isolated if there is evidence that they are likely to affect other persons.
Another important issue raised by BONELA in its reservations on the bill relate to the taking away of parental consent and guardianship from parents of minors and placing them in the hands of doctors in contravention of the constitution which places such guardianship on the High Court and not doctors.
BONELA should be commended for rising to the challenge and lobbying parliamentarians to reject the Bill.
We are inclined to assume that before BONELA made its observations, the majority of Batswana may not have been aware of these particular provisions that the organization is taking issue with.
It is indisputable that the majority of Batswana, save for a few business people who are looking for tendering opportunities ever lay their hands on the Government Gazette. This invariably means that although the bill was gazetted before being tabled in parliament, the majority of our people didn’t know about it and its contents or provisions.
We call on the Law Society of Botswana as a human rights advocate group to join hands with BONELA in fighting the injustice that the envisaged law is likely to visit on our people.
It is our fervent hope that legislators across the political divide will wise up and reject the bill with the contempt it deserves on the back of the free education that BONELA has thus far tendered on the bill.
We also call on the minister to avoid unnecessary and expensive litigation by withdrawing the bill so as to allow further consultations given the threatened human rights violations that could manifest if the hill is passed into law.
