Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .

MLA
Dr Caoimhe Archibald
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
15 April 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4483186

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and on the development of a baby loss certificate scheme for parents who have lost a baby during pregnancy before 24 weeks. At the outset, I pay tribute to those women and parents, who have gone through the heartache of losing a baby during pregnancy, for shining a light on the issue and for sharing their stories publicly to encourage change. I know that that is not easy. The loss of a baby is a tragic thing for any family to experience and it is also very personal. To share that experience publicly, to campaign for change, takes a lot of courage and a lot of selflessness. I thank all those parents, including those in the Chamber, and the health professionals and organisations that support those who have suffered loss, who got in touch and shared their stories with me and colleagues in advance of the debate today. We should do everything in our power to support those who have had to endure the pain of losing a baby. Although the motion is broadly framed, and whilst the health matters referred to in the motion are obviously important, the focus of my response is on the registration and certification of life events, which is a core function of my Department. Many of us will have first-hand experience of the registration service at both the happiest and saddest times of our lives. I feel strongly that its work should be extended to include a baby loss certificate scheme. As you will be aware, under current legislation, the death of a baby is only officially recognised if it occurs after the 24th week of pregnancy. In those awful circumstances, the death is recognised as a stillbirth. The parents of a stillborn child can register the stillbirth of their baby and obtain a certificate that recognises their baby's existence. In my view, it is important that the same recognition be afforded to parents who have lost a baby before 24 weeks. While many early pregnancy losses go unreported, it is estimated, as others have said, that one in four pregnancies ends in loss during pregnancy or birth. Baby loss clearly touches many families across our community. It impacts on people from many different walks of life and backgrounds. It unites people from across society in a shared suffering that is all too often born in silence. A certificate will not reverse or undo the pain that baby loss inflicts on women and families, but the introduction of a voluntary baby loss certificate scheme may, in some way, help parents to process their loss. The scheme would give bereaved families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their loss. It could help many of them to recognise that the suffering that they feel is valid, their experience is common — more common than it ought to be — and that its impact is real. It could help to start conversations with family members and friends, bringing this experience into the light, making it part of the family's story and helping with the grieving process. My expectation is that a baby loss certificate scheme would be voluntary and that, of course, there would be no pressure on parents to use the service. My hope is that it would give families the same benefits as have been experienced where the scheme has been introduced and that it would help those families who choose to avail themselves of it. In taking forward the scheme, it is important that we work quickly and efficiently. In correspondence this week, the Health Minister and I affirmed our commitment to work across government on the proposals. The Department of Health is engaging with its counterpart in England as the new system there is embedded. In parallel, I have asked my officials to work with the Department of Health to consider how such a scheme can be implemented here, with the aim of providing the best possible outcome for bereaved parents who wish to have their baby loss formally recognised; I want to see that progressed as quickly as possible. I thank the proposer of the motion and all those who have made important contributions to today's debate; they will help to shape the development of the scheme.

715 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.91).
  • 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-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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.77
No identity-related subject0.17
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.06
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification