By The Namibian (Werner Menges) 

The trial on the women’s claims against Government is scheduled to continue from January 18. The trial was postponed on Friday. Seven days, starting from January 18, have been allocated on the court roll for the continuation of the trial.

More witnesses are expected to testify on behalf of Government, which is defending the claims it is facing, when the trial resumes.

The three women, whose identities may not be revealed in terms of an order issued by the High Court, are suing Government for N,2 million each.

They claim they were sterilised without having given their informed consent for such a far-reaching medical procedure to be performed on them.

Two directly conflicting versions on the issue before the court have been unfolding so far in the testimony heard by Acting Judge President Elton Hoff.

The three women are claiming that the operation each of them was to undergo when they visited a State hospital to give birth, was not properly explained to them before they were required to sign documents in which they gave their consent for the sterilisation to be done.

They are also claiming that their HIV status - all three of them are HIV positive - prompted the State medical personnel involved in their operations to carry out the sterilisation. This, they claim, was an infringement of their constitutional rights, such as the right to dignity and the right to privacy.

The first plaintiff in the case underwent a sterilisation at Oshakati State Hospital in June 2005. She was 26 years old at that stage, and had delivered her second child by caesarian section when the operation was carried out.

The second plaintiff was sterilised at the age of 33 at Katutura State Hospital in December 2007. She is the mother of three children.

The third plaintiff, now 44 years old, had given birth to her seventh child when she was sterilised at Katutura State Hospital in October 2005.

In her testimony during the trial she claimed the sterilisation she was about to undergo was never explained to her before she was given consent forms to sign.

The medical doctor who performed that operation, Dr Godfrey Sichimwa, however testified last week that he explained the procedure to the plaintiff before she signed the consent form.

The reason for her sterilisation was that she was at quite an advanced age, which raised the risk for complications during future pregnancies, he said.

According to her health records, though, the explanation would have taken no more than ten minutes before she signed the consent form, senior counsel Dave Smuts, who is representing the plaintiffs, told Dr Sichimwa during cross-examination.

Dr Sichimwa’s response was that it was indicated on her health passport that the issue had already been explained to her previously as well. In any event, he said, a sterilisation and its consequences and risks can be explained to a patient within ten minutes.

He could not recall if he told the plaintiff that she could refuse to be sterilised, Dr Sichimwa said. When Esi-Schimming-Chase, who is representing Government, asked him what he would have done if she had said she did not want to be sterilised, he answered: “I would have respected her wish.”

A nurse who was involved with the signing of the consent form, Erica Kamberipa-Tjimbundu, conceded that because it was indicated on the third plaintiff’s health passport that she would be sterilised, medical staff might have assumed that the procedure had been properly explained to her previously.

The third plaintiff also claimed that no explanations in her home language, Oshiwambo, were given to her, neither just before she signed the consent form nor during previous visits to the hospital.

However, Dr Tshali Ithete, who saw her when she visited the hospital in March 2005 and asked for her pregnancy to be terminated - something that was not done - told the court that he spoke to her at length in Oshiwambo to explain various options to her, before he referred her to the hospital’s gynaecology department.

With respect to the second plaintiff, Dr Celeste de Klerk testified that when she discussed different family planning options with the patient about a month and a half before her operation, the patient opted to be sterilised.

She would have had to actually agree to have the procedure done at a later stage, Dr De Klerk said.

The trial started in June, and continued from the start of this month.

Smuts is being assisted by Natasha Bassingthwaighte. They are being instructed by the Legal Assistance Centre. Schimming-Chase is acting on instructions from the Government Attorney’s office.

Print      Send to a friend