Mothers betrayed

Every year half a million women die in childbirth, deaths easily prevented. Here Sarah Brown, wife o

Two weeks ago, at Mulago Hospital in Kampala, I sat down next to a mother called Sylvia, resting in bed with her newborn baby after a successful delivery, nearly ready to return to her husband and five older children.

But I also looked through a window into a room containing eight babies, none more than two days old, their little cots covered in malaria nets. The doctors explained to me that in each of these cases, and hundreds more like them in the same hospital each year, the mother had died in childbirth.

The causes of death varied from bleeding and infection to high blood pressure and failure to survive a Caesarean section - all so easily preventable by modern western standards. In Britain, for the same reasons, the death of a mother in childbirth was once a common hazard, a fixture of Victorian life.

Improvements over the past century in antenatal care, health education, and obstetric and gynaecological care have lowered the risks of childbirth. There may be more to do at home, particularly on the health risks to newborn babies. But nowadays, only seven in 100,000 women die when giving birth in Britain.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the conditions and health care for mothers in childbirth are often no better, and sometimes far worse, than we had in Victorian times. In 1987, more than 500,000 women were dying in pregnancy or childbirth every year across the world, 99 per cent of them in developing countries. More than half of all women were delivering their babies with no skilled birth attendant present.

It was because of this terrible toll that 20 years ago, the Global Safe Motherhood Initiative was launched by the World Health Organisation to try to reduce the rates of maternal death. In 2000, the United Nations recognised the shocking rates of maternal death and made their reduction one of the Millennium Development Goals. The fifth MDG committed the wealthiest nations to cut maternal mortality by three-quarters between 1990 and 2015.

Tragically, 20 years after the Global Safe Motherhood Initiative, seven years after the UN Millennium Summit, no progress has been made. If anything, the figures are worse. Of 211 million pregnancies worldwide in 2005, eight million women experienced life-threatening complications during pregnancy or childbirth.

Those with access to skilled care and services tended to survive. But 536,000 died, the vast majority in developing countries, 80 per cent of them totally avoidable. Millions more have continuing health difficulties following obstetric complications, making life after childbirth difficult and painful.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of mothers dying in childbirth is around one in 50: up to 100,000 women die each year, and hundreds of thousands of babies and older children are left without a mother.

Visit hospitals in Africa and it is easy to see why. While the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was going on in Uganda, I visited labour wards and delivery rooms at Muhimbili Hospital in Dar es Salaam and Mulago Hospital in Kampala. They are both huge referral hospitals attracting many women from across each city, and they offer the only real emergency obstetric care in their areas.

Mulago alone sees the delivery of 33,000 babies a year, almost one hundred a day. Compare that to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary where my children were born, which is considered a big UK facility and where just 6,000 babies are delivered each year.

In all my visits, I saw overstretched services at work, committed teams with too few con sultants, nurses and midwives, and insufficient equipment and technical provision. Shortages included basic supplies such as sutures and painkillers, which run out whenever there is an extra-busy day for Caesarean sections or other emergency procedures.

The governments in Tanzania and Uganda are doing their best to make progress.

The Tanzanian president, Jakaya Kikwete, told me this was a personal passion for him, and that his government had pledged to put dispensaries around the country that could also offer antenatal care. In Uganda, I saw the nearly completed refurbishment of a maternity block in the Mulago Hospital grounds. But still the death toll remains stubbornly high.

And what makes the lack of any progress on maternal mortality so depressing and frustrating is that, on other Millennium Development Goals, some progress - albeit slowly - is being made and things are beginning to improve. Millions more children are surviving infancy, receiving vaccinations and going to primary school than were in 2000, their life chances transformed by better health care and education. Even in the uphill struggle against Aids, great progress is being made. In Uganda, HIV infection has fallen from 16 per cent to 5 per cent in the past decade.

Yet we know that for hundreds of thousands of children each year, the improvements we make to their life chances through better edu cation and health care are cancelled out by the loss of their mother. For every mother who dies in childbirth, the life chances of a new baby - as well as its brothers and sisters - can be damaged beyond repair.

Avoidable deaths

It is obviously harder for a child to survive, grow and have a life with choices if there is no mother to provide care, food, protection and education. The statistics bear this out. A study in Indonesia showed that 14 per cent of children aged six to ten who had lost mothers dropped out of school, compared to only 7 per cent of those who had not. Poverty as an adult was far more likely for the former group.

The same study showed that children without mothers were four times more likely to die in their early years - usually of malnutrition or disease - compared to other children.

Internationally, pressure is growing, through the White Ribbon Alliance, a global campaign group dedicated to highlighting the avoidable tragedy of maternal death, supported by the WHO's Making Pregnancy Safer campaign and the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. In the UK, the White Ribbon Alliance is led by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and I sit on its international advisory group. This has given me the opportunity to meet some of the world's leading experts in this field. It has opened my eyes to the impact of maternal death on the life chances of infants.

The general causes are well understood: high fertility rates lead to greater pressure on resources, inadequate and inaccessible health care makes childbirth inherently risky, and women's low status economically and culturally affects their access to health services and the priority they are given.

There is also broad agreement on the solutions required: greater resources, better education, better access to emergency care, availability of antenatal care to spot problems in advance and quick referrals for mothers with complications.

The RCOG International Office has designed a course teaching young consultants essential obstetric and newborn care. The course is available in Tanzania and Kenya, and I hope it will soon be extended to Uganda. Accompanied by Tony Falconer, RCOG senior vice-president, I met a young doctor in the antenatal clinic at Muhimbili Hospital who had completed the course two months before, and thought his training had already helped him save lives.

The RCOG is taking this work further. In South Africa, it is working to help obstetric experts develop a training package for all local doctors in their third postgraduate year, generally spent in more remote conditions. Momentum is building. I am hopeful that a special session will be devoted to maternal death at next year's international summit in Davos and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding projects around the world to raise awareness.

At home, just over a month ago, the International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander, announced at a conference in London that the UK would commit an extra £100m towards improvements in reproductive health. To meet any of the Millennium Development Goals, we need the will, the means and the momentum. We have seen this in relation to vaccinations, free education and the fight against Aids. Now we must see it on the issue of maternal death, where no significant progress has been made, not just in the past seven years, but in the past two decades.

Each developing country needs a strategic health plan that takes account of local situations, expanding services so that populated central and remote areas alike acquire trained people and resources. The investment needed to improve maternal health is small, but the gains for the poorest children in the world will be huge. We must make 2008 the first year of progress on this neglected Millennium Development Goal.

Sarah Brown sits on the international advisory board of the Royal College of Obstetricians. As founder of the Jennifer Brown Fund, she has been closely involved for the past six years in the area of infant and maternal health

This article first appeared in the 10 December 2007 issue of the New Statesman, How New Labour turned toxic

Picture: David Parkin
Show Hide image

The humbling of Theresa May

The Prime Minister has lost all authority. The Tories will remove her as soon as they feel the time is right.

Being politicians of unsentimental, ruthless realism, the Conservatives did not linger in the grief stage of their collective disaster after the general election. Disbelief, too, was commendably brief.

Currently, their priority is to impose some sort of order on themselves. This is the necessary prelude to the wholesale change that most see as the next phase in their attempt at recovery, which they all know is essential to their career prospects – and believe is vital to a country whose alternative prime minister is Jeremy Corbyn.

For that reason, talk of Theresa May enduring as Prime Minister until the end of the Brexit negotiations in two years’ time is the preserve of just a few wishful thinkers. Some sort of calm is being established but the party is far from settled or united; there is a widespread conviction that it cannot be so under the present leader.

Elements of the great change have been executed, as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, May’s former advisers, will testify.

However, this is only beginning, as shown by the debate in the media about how long May can survive in Downing Street. There is dissatisfaction about elements of her recent reshuffle, but it is quieted because few believe that some of the more contentious appointments or reappointments will last more than a matter of months. Her colleagues are also alarmed by the meal she has made of doing what was supposed to be a straightforward deal with the DUP.

The climate in the party at the moment is one in which everything – jobs, policies and, of course, the leadership – will soon be up for grabs. Debate over “hard” and “soft” Brexits is illusory: anyone who wants to be Conservative leader will need to respect the view of the party in the country, which is that Britain must leave the single market and the customs union to regain control of trade policy and borders. That is one reason why the prospects of David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, are being talked up.

Some of May’s MPs, for all their hard-mindedness about the future, speak of feeling “poleaxed” since the general election. Even before the result changed everything, there was dismay about the bad national campaign; but that, it was felt, could be discussed in a leisurely post-mortem.

Now, instead, it has undermined faith in May’s leadership and credibility. “The social care disaster was key to our defeat,” an MP told me. “It wasn’t just that the policy damaged our core vote, it was the amateurishness of the U-turn.” A more seasoned colleague noted that “it was the first election I’ve fought where we succeeded in pissing off every section of our core vote”.

The limited ministerial reshuffle was inevitable given May’s lack of authority, and summed up her untenability beyond the short term. Most of her few important changes were deeply ill judged: notably the sacking of the skills and apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon, the MP for Harlow in Essex, and a rare Tory with a direct line to the working class; and the Brexit minister David Jones, whose job had hardly begun and whose boss, Davis, was not consulted.

George Bridges, another Brexit minister, who resigned, apparently did so because he felt May had undermined the government’s position in the negotiations so badly, by failing to win the election comprehensively, that he could not face going on.

Much has been made of how Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, was marginalised and briefed against, yet reappointed. Patrick McLoughlin, the party chairman, suffered similarly. Conservative Central Office was largely shut out from the catastrophic campaign, though no one got round to briefing against McLoughlin, who kept his head down – unheard-of conduct by a party chairman in an election.

As a political force, Central Office is for now more or less impotent. It has lost the knack of arguing the case for Conservatism. MPs are increasingly worried that their party is so introspective that it just can’t deal with the way Corbyn is spinning his defeat. “An ugly mood is growing,” one said, “because militant leftism is going unchallenged.” That cannot change until May has gone and the party machine is revived and re-inspired.

***

Nobody in the party wants a general election: but most want a leadership election, and minds are concentrated on how to achieve the latter without precipitating the former. One angry and disillusioned ex-minister told me that “if there were an obvious candidate she’d be shitting herself. But most of us have realised Boris is a wanker, DD isn’t a great communicator and is a bit up himself, Hammond has no charisma, and Amber [Rudd] has a majority of 346.”

On Monday a group of senior ex-ministers met at Westminster to discuss next steps. It was agreed that, with the Brexit talks under way, the most important thing in the interests of restoring order was securing the vote on the Queen’s Speech. Then, May having done her duty and steadied the proverbial ship, the party would manage her dignified and calm evacuation from Downing Street.

Those who agree on this do not always agree on the timing. However, few can make the leap of imagination required to see her addressing the party conference in October, unless to say “Thank you and goodnight” and to initiate a leadership contest. Many would like her out long before then. The only reason they don’t want it this side of securing the Queen’s Speech is that the result, as one put it, would be “chaos”, with a leadership contest resembling “a circular firing squad”.

That metaphor is popular among Tories these days. Others use it to describe the ­apportioning of blame after the election. As well as Timothy and Hill, Lynton Crosby has sustained severe wounds that may prevent the Tories from automatically requesting his services again.

Following the Brexit referendum and Zac Goldsmith’s nasty campaign for the London mayoralty, Crosby has acquired the habit of losing. And then there was Ben Gummer, blamed not only for the social care debacle, but also for upsetting fishermen with a vaguely couched fisheries policy. These failings are becoming ancient history – and the future, not the past, is now the urgent matter – yet some Conservatives still seethe about them despite trying to move on.

“I haven’t heard anyone say she should stay – except Damian Green,” a former minister observed, referring to the new First Secretary of State. Green was at Oxford with May and seems to have earned his job because he is one of her rare friends in high politics. He is regarded as sharing her general lack of conviction.

Older activists recall how the party, in 1974, clung loyally to Ted Heath after he lost one election, and even after he lost a second. Now, deference is over. Most Tory activists, appalled by the handling of the campaign, want change. They would, however, like a contest: annoyed at not having been consulted last time, they intend not to be left silent again.

That view is largely reflected at Westminster, though a few MPs believe a coronation wouldn’t be a problem, “as we don’t want a public examination of the entrails for weeks on end when we need to be shown to be running the country effectively”. Most MPs disagree with that, seeing where a coronation got them last time.

With the summer recess coming up, at least the public’s attention would not be on Westminster if the contest took place mostly during that time: hence the feeling that, once the Queen’s Speech is dealt with, May should announce her intention to leave, in order to have a successor in place before the conference season. It is then up to the party to design a timetable that compresses the hustings between the final two candidates into as short a time as compatible with the democratic process, to get the new leader in place swiftly.

Some letters requesting a contest are said to have reached Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers. One MP told me with great authority that there were eight; another, with equal certainty, said 12. Forty-eight are needed to trigger the procedure. However, engineering such a contest is not how most Tories would like to proceed. “She has had an international humiliation,” a former cabinet minister said, “and it is transparently ghastly for her. Then came the [Grenfell Tower] fire. There is no sense our rubbing it in. I suspect she knows she has to go. We admire her for staying around and clearing up the mess in a way Cameron didn’t. But she is a stopgap.”

MPs believe, with some justification, that the last thing most voters want is another general election, so caution is paramount. None doubts that the best outcome for all concerned would be for May to leave without being pushed.

Her tin-eared response to the Grenfell disaster shocked colleagues with its amateurishness and disconnection. “I’m sure she’s very upset by Grenfell,” someone who has known her since Oxford said. “But she is incapable of showing empathy. She has no bridge to the rest of the world other than Philip.” Another, referring to the controversial remark that torpedoed Andrea Leadsom’s leadership ambitions last year, said: “You would get shot for saying it, but not having had children hasn’t helped her when it comes to relating to people. Leadsom was right.”

***

May was quicker off the mark on Monday, issuing a statement condemning the appalling attack at Finsbury Park Mosque swiftly after it occurred, and going there shortly afterwards to meet community leaders. No one could fault her assurance that Muslims must enjoy the same protection under the law as everyone else, or the speed and sincerity with which it was made. She is learning what leadership entails, but too late.

Her administration has become unlucky. This happened to John Major, but, as in his case, the bad luck is partly down to bad decisions; and the bad luck that comes out of the blue simply piles in on top of everything else. Grenfell Tower, lethal and heartbreaking for its victims and their families, was merely more bad luck for the Prime Minister because of her slow-witted response and failure – presumably because shorn of her closest advisers – to do the right thing, and to do it quickly.

But then it turned out that her new chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, had in his previous incarnation as a housing minister received a report on improving fire safety in tower blocks and done nothing about it. That is either more bad luck, or it shows May has dismal judgement in the quality of people she appoints to her close circle. Form suggests the latter.

The idea aired last weekend, that May had “ten days to prove herself”, was a minority view. For most of her colleagues it is too late. It was typical of Boris Johnson’s dwindling band of cheerleaders that they should broadcast a story supporting Davis as an “interim” leader: “interim” until Johnson’s credibility has recovered sufficiently for him to have another pop at the job he covets so much.

They also sought to create the impression that Davis is on manoeuvres, which he resolutely is not. Davis has been around long enough to know that if he wants to succeed May – and his friends believe he does – he cannot be seen to do anything to destabilise her further. It is a lesson lost on Johnson’s camp, whose tactics have damaged their man even more than he was already.

Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary and a close ally of Davis, told the Guardian: “. . . it is simply untrue that he is doing anything other
than focusing on his incredibly important brief and giving loyal support to the Prime Minister. Anyone suggesting otherwise is freelancing.” That summed up the contempt Davis’s camp has for Johnson, and it will last long beyond any leadership race.

There is a sense that, in the present febrile climate, whoever is the next leader must be highly experienced. Davis qualifies; so does Hammond, who before his present job was foreign secretary and defence secretary, and who has belatedly displayed a mind of his own since May was hobbled. Hugo Swire, a minister of state under Hammond in the Foreign Office, said of him: “He’s got bottom. He was very good to work for. He is an homme sérieux. I liked him very much and he would calm things down.”

But, as yet, there is no contest. Calls for calm have prevailed, not least thanks to Graham Brady’s steady stewardship of the 1922 Committee, and his success in convincing the more hot-headed of his colleagues to hold their fire. Yet MPs say the 1922 is not what it was 20 years ago: ministers have become used to taking it less seriously.

However, many MPs expect Brady, at a time of their choosing, to go to Downing Street and deliver the poison pill to Theresa May if she is slow to go. Some who know her fear she might take no notice. If she were to play it that way, her end would be unpleasant. As the old saying goes, there is the easy way, and there is the hard way. Remarkably few of her colleagues want to go the hard way but, like everything else in the Tory party at the moment, that could change.

Simon Heffer is a journalist, author and political commentator, who has worked for long stretches at the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. He has written biographies of Thomas Carlyle, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Enoch Powell, and reviews and writes on politics for the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496