News

Controversial memo on birth control at a pharmaceutical dept in Thai hospital revoked

11 November 2014

Rajavithi Hospital Director Udom Chaovarindr admitted that a memo prohibiting employees from getting pregnant until the end of next year did exist, but explained that it was a mutual agreement within its pharmaceutical division, and not hospital policy.

After being heavily criticized, the memo has been revoked. 

ผู้อำนวยการโรงพยาบาลราชวิถีกล่าวว่าภายหลังตรวจสอบ พบว่าการประกาศห้ามเจ้าหน้าที่หญิงตั้งครรภ์เป็นการประกาศจากหัวหน้าห้องยา ซึ่งอาจเกิดจากความเครียดในการบริหารจัดการบุคลาการ ทั้งนี้ ได้อธิบายไปว่าการห้ามตั้งครรภ์ไม่สามารถทำได้ และได้สั่งการให้หามาตราการใหม่ในการบริหารจัดการบุคลากร

***การห้ามตั้งท้องเป็นการละเมิดสิทธิขั้นพื้นฐานของบุคคล และละเมิดกฎหมายแรงงานอีกด้วย***

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Controversial-memo-on-birth-control-not-hospital-p-30247465.html

 

Controversial memo on birth control 'not hospital policy'

Poungchompoo Prasert

The Nation November 11, 2014 1:00 am
 

 

RAJAVITHI HOSPITAL director Udom Chaovarindr admitted yesterday that a memo prohibiting employees from getting pregnant until the end of next year did exist, but explained that it was a mutual agreement within its pharmaceutical division, and not hospital policy.

He said he had warned the division officials and revoked the memo, insisting there was no policy against employees getting pregnant.



News of this memo issued by a hospital in Bangkok's Victory Monument area broke on Facebook, drawing a lot of criticism among Thai users. The page has since been deleted.



In response to the uproar, hospitals in the area, including Rajavithi, initially denied the existence of the memo, though later Udom said he would investigate. Yesterday, Udom confirmed the existence of the memo, but insisted that it was an agreement made within a division and that it was not the hospital's policy.



He said the division head might have been under stress because many staff members were pregnant, and hence had asked for cooperation for all women to take birth control. However, he suggested a misunderstanding might have emerged, as there were internal conflicts within the division and someone who was upset by the order might have publicised it.



"I understand that though it had |good intentions, I have clarified to the division head that this measure deprives people of their rights, is unconstitutional and must be revoked," he said. The division chief has been instructed to find other management measures. Udom said the division also held a meeting yesterday to clarify the issue.