Written question AQW 51589/22-27
Written question by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 September 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 51589/22-27
- Department
- Department of Health
- Business
- To the Minister of Health
- Assembly identifier
- Document 497787
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Health to detail the extent to which the diagnosis and management of endometriosis is included in undergraduate medical education and clinical training, including (i) the number of hours of teaching dedicated specifically to endometriosis; (ii) the stages of medical education at which this teaching is provided; (iii) the clinical placements through which medical students gain experience of women presenting with suspected endometriosis; and (iv) the arrangements in place to ensure that newly qualified doctors have the knowledge and skills required to recognise and appropriately investigate suspected endometriosis.
92 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | 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-qualifying 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 | 0.42 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.34 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 07:41 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.