Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- 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 4483190
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In addressing the motion and winding up on the amendment, I not only acknowledge the importance of the issue but agree with our colleague Mark Durkan whose contribution indicated that there are two separate issues and that it would perhaps have been better had we dealt with them separately so that the Health Minister could have been here to deal with the issue of the lack of a paediatric pathology service in Northern Ireland. We are where we are, however, and we support the motion and, obviously, the amendment. The issues are emotional and difficult, and we should acknowledge and thank the Chair of the Health Committee, Liz Kimmins, for bringing to the fore the stories of so many people who had contacted her. One thing that all of us in the Chamber have agreed on is that we must do better to support those who are affected by early baby loss. We all know, when we hear of a pregnancy, that that is the start of hopes, dreams and all that is so important, but we have also heard in the debate that, in the United Kingdom, an estimated 25,000 pregnancies end through miscarriage. It is the most common complication of pregnancy, so it is a really significant issue that we have to deal with. A certificate for those who have had a miscarriage or lost a baby through an ectopic pregnancy prior to 24 weeks is therefore a small but important acknowledgement of that child's life. We have also all agreed on this: a certificate is not enough. We must look at how clinicians support mothers and parents. I have heard the loss of a baby through miscarriage be referred to as a "clinical episode" or by some other term that is cold. We really must get away from language that takes away from the loss. There are some absolutely brilliant examples of training for midwives, for example, but more training and more knowledge will be required to make the process better for everyone. We should look at not only the baby loss certificate, which is important in itself, but the training that we give and how we address the issue with parents. As our colleague Cheryl Brownlee indicated, to simply be sent home from hospital with a leaflet is a fairly brutal experience for new parents.
The second part of the motion is about the lack of a child pathology service. I think that all of us in the Chamber agree — I will not labour the point — that, as Robbie Butler said, it is cruel to not have that service in Northern Ireland, or least have access to it on a wider all-island basis. That is important, and we should be working towards it. If we see ourselves as a compassionate society, it is important to do that. There has been a failure to address these issues. There are many huge issues that the Assembly must address. We must have a Budget, a Programme for Government and all these things, but it is sometimes the simple things that actually make a difference. That is very important. I want us to ensure that we look at all options to ensure that this issue is resolved. It has gone on now for five or six years, and that is far too long for it to have persisted. Perhaps it would —
— be good to hear from the Health Minister on the issue. In closing, I want to say: thank you, Kellie, for sharing your story. You make a massively important point about the cut-off date, and I hope that the Finance Minister picks up that point in developing the scheme.
614 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: 0.03 (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 (0.92).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.77 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.22 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.