I paid UGX 1,000 to read the "premium" version of this article. I also took time to read about the rare form of cancer he suffered from. Yet, after reading the views attributed to the doctors quoted, I am left with the impression that everyone appears to be deflecting responsibility rather than explaining how the illness was actually managed or could have been managed.
Question that must be answered: who was responsible for the clinical decisions at each stage of his treatment? Which doctor or hospital eventually referred him to Nairobi? Or did the family lose confidence in the local healthcare system and make that decision on their own?
I have been in a position I would not wish on anyone. Whether by misfortune or by God's design, I became the primary caregiver for the two people dearest to me: my mother and my son.
My mother underwent cancer treatment here in Uganda, a story I will one day tell in full, including what I consider serious negligence at 3 Rivers Cancer Centre. My son underwent three open-heart surgeries in India. Both eventually passed away.
Throughout their treatment journeys, I immersed myself in medical literature and research to educate myself. Learning has always been a habit throughout my school and professional life, and I quickly realised that informed families often ask questions that institutions would rather avoid.
Given the stature of King Oyo, the very least the Ministry of Health (@MinofHealthUG) can do is conduct an independent Clinical Audit of the entire treatment pathway, beginning with the initial misdiagnosis at The Surgery and ending with his transfer out of the country, a process his sister reportedly said took approximately one year. Because despite how rare the cancer is, it was diagnosed in Nairobi after a PET Scan. So at what point did any doctor or hospital think of a PET scan? If they thought about it at all.
This is not about assigning blame for the sake of blame. It is about establishing facts, accountability, and lessons for the future.
A Clinical Death Audit, also known as a Mortality Review, is a systematic examination of a patient's medical records following death. It evaluates the entire continuum of care against established clinical standards to determine whether delays, missed opportunities, or system failures contributed to the outcome and whether the death might have been preventable.
Such an audit would trace:
⏩The initial presentation, including the timeliness and accuracy of triage, investigations, and diagnosis.
⏩Clinical decision-making, including whether treatment protocols aligned with evidence-based medical guidelines.
⏩Monitoring and escalation, including how quickly clinical deterioration was recognised and acted upon.
⏩System factors, including staffing levels, availability of medicines, equipment functionality, referral delays, and transfer processes.
The question is not whether King Oyo's death could have been prevented. The question is whether every reasonable opportunity to diagnose, treat, monitor, and escalate his care was fully utilised. Only a Clinical Audit can answer that. Until then, the public is being asked to accept conclusions without being shown the evidence.