Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1419542,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1419542/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 243,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Olekina",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 407,
        "legal_name": "Ledama Olekina",
        "slug": "ledama-olekina"
    },
    "content": "mothers need care. This Bill talks about future mothers, pregnant mothers and those who have delivered, and I love that. I request that we combine them, so that they shall maintain the same policy. The care we are seeking to provide these mothers ought to be intertwined with the children. If today any of our citizens go to the hospital and delivers, the policy now covers both the mother and the unborn child. The moment the child is put on a table, the hospital asks that you provide a medical cover for that child. Who knows if that child will survive for 30 or 90 days? I propose that we now become future-centric and amend insurance policies and the Act, so that they cover the child and mother for one full year, until the time the child can survive. We lose a many children because the mothers cannot afford to pay for their own insurance policy together with the child’s. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is only one Clause I am not sure of. I want Sen. Ogola to elaborate this further. Clause 8(2) and (3), under subsection (1) talks about the issues that I have been trying to explain on the care that is supposed to be given to the child and the mother. Clause 8(2) states that where the child under subsection (1) is severely malformed at the time of birth, the health care provider may refer the child to a relevant medical practitioner for comprehensive assessment, diagnosis and treatment. It further states, on Clause 8(3)(1) that- “A healthcare provider shall not provide health care services to the child under sub section (1) unless the health care provider has obtained consent from the parent or guardian of the child.” The word is “shall not”. Mr. Speaker, Sir, that is contradictory because we are saying, let us provide that child with the best care and then, you put it into a condition where it depends on the consent of the mother. If she does not consent, that child is not treated. We will actually cause many problems. I persuade my sister to delete that section. She should also ensure that everything that we are talking about on making sure that we are providing our mothers and children with the best cover, is to ensure that that the State takes responsibility for that child until it is one year old. In future, we might actually say, ‘until that child is emancipated.’ That time, we will be looking at about 18 or 19 years old. Since we are realistic on the state of our finances as a country, there is nothing bad in amending the Insurance Act, to ensure that child and mother are together for one year and the policy covers. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have noted that in this Bill, the Cabinet Secretary has been given a lot of responsibility. I dare say that the reason we are having many problems in this country today, particularly with this issue of the strike by the doctors is that although a function has been fully devolved, in Levels 1 to 5 hospitals, we are still relying so much on bureaucracies of a Cabinet Secretary. It is about time this House asks serious questions. Are we ready to deal with the issue of devolution? We keep on saying that form follows functions. Even this Bill says that county governments shall provide money for the maternal new born and the child health programmes. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}