Written question AQW 48855/22-27
Written question by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 June 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 48855/22-27
- Department
- Department of Health
- Business
- To the Minister of Health
- Assembly identifier
- Document 490872
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Health whether the following scenarios would normally be considered to meet the threshold for serious harm under the Serious Adverse Incident (SAI) framework, including whether such circumstances would be expected to trigger SAI consideration; (i) medication-related harm resulting in permanent movement disorder or other lasting neurological injury; (ii) failure to investigate or act on specialist advice identifying risks of serious physical illness over a period of months; (iii) continued prescribing where known safety risks have been identified but not documented or communicated across care settings; and (iv) failure to act on abnormal clinical findings or risk indicators during pregnancy or childbirth, resulting in avoidable harm to the mother or infant.
115 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.01 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.92 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 07:10 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.