Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
Debate contribution by Mr Gary Middleton on .
- MLA
- Mr Gary Middleton
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4483178
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. Indeed, I pay tribute to all who have already spoken, particularly Kellie for making her important contribution and for sharing her experience of loss. Losing a baby at any stage during or after pregnancy is, without doubt, one of the most difficult experiences that anyone can go through. The trauma, the grief and the often unanswered questions are tragic for grieving mothers, fathers and their loved ones. Losing a baby has a profound and lasting impact on people's lives. We must act together to provide a method of recognising the life that existed and the loss of that precious life. For the many who have, sadly, had to experience the pain of losing their baby, the lack of a formal process to acknowledge the loss of life and the fact that their baby existed is incredibly significant. I speak from personal experience: my wife experienced several baby losses prior to 24 weeks. The excitement that comes with pregnancy, the bonding, the planning, the life that exists within and the terrible, painful, sudden and traumatic loss prove to make the grieving process all the harder. In our case, when medical professionals could not find an answer as to why, we, of course, were left with a very painful and private grief, with no formal way of acknowledging the loss due to not reaching certain date-based thresholds. The pain in those instances is much more than just physical, and we, as a family unit, know that a formal certificate to mark our babies' lives would have helped profoundly in our journey. Baby loss certificates are a tangible and meaningful way for grieving parents and loved ones to recognise and grieve their profound loss. Such a certificate would serve as a reminder that they are not alone, that their baby's life mattered and that their baby will never be forgotten. It is important to pay tribute to the many groups, charities and individuals who, over the years, have worked tirelessly to provide support to bereaved families. Such organisations are strong advocates for the many babies who have, sadly, passed away, unaccounted for on death registers but forever loved and missed in their parents' lives. I specifically want to mention Julie-Ann, from my constituency, and all those at Life After Loss who provide much-needed support, comfort and friendship to the many families who have, sadly, lost their babies during pregnancy. Julie-Ann, like many other women, has her own story of loss that she has bravely shared, and, for years, she has used her story as motivation to help others. Julie-Ann recognises the difference that a baby loss certificate would have made to her journey, and she actively and passionately advocates for the scheme to be formalised. The introduction of certificates may seem like a small step forward. However, it would be a powerful, compassionate and empathetic way of supporting the many families in all our constituencies who face tremendous loss. There are, of course, wider challenges, such as the stigma around openly talking about pregnancy loss, the feelings of isolation and, for some, self-blame. We, as public representatives, have the power to encourage change, to talk about our journeys and to open the door to those who have their own experiences of loss. Of course, every story is unique and deeply personal. In order to provide better and much more compassionate help, we must listen to those who have walked that journey.
578 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 (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 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.