Zimpapers Logo

IT is strange that any credence has been given to the attack by Registrar-General Tobaiwa Mudede on modern contraceptives since the subject is not within his area of expertise nor is it part of his statutory responsibilities.

Mr Mudede is neither a medical practitioner, a pharmacologist nor a research scientist within the medical field. His views on safety of contraception are thus purely his own private opinion, not an expert medical opinion and should not have been raised before a Parliamentary portfolio committee.

He, as is the case with all Zimbabweans, is entitled to his private views and is entitled to express these views. But they are his private views and that is all. And it is wrong for him to use his official position to express them. They are way outside the ambit of the multitude of duties of the Registrar-General, a task he has performed remarkably well considering his budgetary constraints and inadequate premises.

He has also accepted totally the couple of judgments of the courts that have gone against old-fashioned practices in his office over women.

When it comes to professional health matters, the Permanent Secretary for Health and Child Welfare generally has the final authority, although on some matters professional statutory bodies such as the Medicines Control Authority have the last word.

They are required to make their decisions on purely medical grounds after considering professional medical facts. Even the Minister of Health and Child Welfare cannot intervene on such professional matters, although he provides the political leadership and has considerable say over important areas such as setting priorities and ensuring they are implemented.

Mr Mudede has made it clear in the past that he dislikes contraception and wishes that women would not use artificial means of contraception. We understand that he bases his condemnation on political grounds and his preference for tradition, rather than basing his condemnation on religious beliefs, as for example a Catholic priest would do. While Mr Mudede’s hypothesis that modern contraception is a Western plot to depopulate developing countries is false in light of the fact that the highest users of modern contraceptives are these same Western countries plus most countries in Asia, especially China.

Latin America’s consumption is rising fast and Africa is not far behind. It is a worldwide phenomenon and effective family planning, whether using artificial means of contraception or natural means, largely follows rapid expansion of education opportunities for girls and women.

It is, however, also true that demographically superior countries are among the fastest developing, cases in point being Brazil, China, and India. Zimbabwe’s high rate of contraceptive use is almost certainly a direct result of the political decisions made after independence to put all our children through at least 11 years of school, put in place an effective primary health care system and remove all legal impediments to female emancipation. Our educated and emancipated young women are quite capable of making up their own minds on the subject.

Of course there can be side-effects with some contraceptive drugs, but these are explained and monitored and women who are susceptible to one method can be advised of alternatives. No one is forced to use any particular method or to use contraception at all.

Those who do use contraceptives do so as informed people who understand the potential risks and the advantages. After all women give birth, with all its risks and so should be able make their own decisions on the matter, albeit after getting adequate professional advice.

The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development was perhaps unwise to allow statements on contraception safety from a non-expert, but has taken the correct decision to hear evidence on the subject from experts, and more particularly from experts with the statutory authority to make definitive decisions.

We hope that this evidence will clear the air.