THE EDITOR, Sir:ALMOST ONE year ago, I started penning a letter to the editor about the disregard that a prominent hospital has for fathers. However, the joys of caring for a newborn baby boy derailed my plans. My dissatisfaction has been re-ignited though by recent articles lamenting the lack of father figures in Jamaican society and especially the comments of Dr. Cecil Batchelor in the August 7 edition of your Outlook magazine.
In a society that has begun to recognise the detrimental effects of absentee fathers, I am shocked that such a prestigious institution as the University Hospital of the West Indies (U.H.W.I.) would have a hand in contributing to our "fatherless" society.
On August 24, 2004, I gave birth to a bouncing baby boy at U.H.W.I. Contrary to often told horror stories of incompetent trainees, the staff proved to be very well-trained professionals. The nurses are to be especially commended for their patience, empathy and support beyond the call of duty. My contention then is with U.H.W.I.'s hostility towards fathers and its failure to recognise that a patient's physical well-being can be linked to his/her psychological well-being.
I was admitted to Obstetrics Ward 12 eleven days prior to giving birth because of high blood pressure. To my surprise, my husband was told that he had to adhere to the visiting hours of 11:00 am to mid-day and 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. a total of two and a half hours a day. So at nine months pregnant, I was cut off from my biggest source of support. The result of this "care" was that my pressure went down when he was present only to shoot back up when he left.
After giving birth by Caesarean (a procedure during which my husband was not allowed to be present), I was taken to Ward 11. Imagine helping to create a life, nurturing that life for nine months and on the glorious day of birth have that child taken from you only to be granted access to your baby for a little more than two hours a day. That is exactly what happened to my husband as he was again restricted to the same visiting hours. How can we expect to create a society in which fathers understand and accept their responsibility when we literally exclude them from day one? The 'inconvenience' of fathers on wards getting in the way of hospital staff is far outweighed by their importance in their child's life and thus their presence should be no more of a bother than the mother's presence.
Shame on hospitals for treating the mimracle of birth like an illness, a disease, instead of the wonderful occasion it is in which mother and father should share equally.
I am, etc.,
K. ELLINGTON
Kingston
