Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service

Debate contribution by Miss Órlaithí Flynn on .

MLA
Miss Órlaithí Flynn
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
15 April 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4483198

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I sincerely thank every Member who has spoken during the debate. It has been said a few times, but it really does not get more personal than Members choosing to share their own wee bits of personal recollection and accounts of their experience of baby loss. It is an emotional debate for many Members. As Diane said, that is reflective of how emotional, how personal and how real this is for all the people we represent, because we are reflective of the communities that we come from. How the debate has gone across the Chamber is reflective of how people feel about these issues. Sadly, many, many people have been through it. We all know the importance of it, I am sure, having been through it ourselves or if a family member, a friend or a relative has. We all get the importance of it and the emotion around it. For an issue that clearly has been felt by so many people, it has, historically, been overlooked for a really long time, If we can introduce certificates to acknowledge the loss of a wee baby before the 24-week period, that will be a brilliant initiative. Some of the groups have highlighted that certificates are only one option in trying to help support people after baby loss but that there are other issues around support services and education and awareness of the issues. I have no doubt that it has been particularly difficult for the Members who told their personal stories. One of the first conversations that Kellie and I had in Stormont was before I had even started my IVF, and I still, to this day, appreciate Kellie's openness and kindness when she spoke about her own experience. Gary spoke about his experience and talked about how you start bonding with a baby in early pregnancy and about all that self-blame. No matter how soon or how late you lose a baby in pregnancy, you still go through all the emotions and all the feelings. I have spoken previously about my experience. The Assembly was not sitting at the time but, after my first round of IVF, we fell pregnant. I lost the pregnancy very early on. I was only eight weeks pregnant, but, even still, that was eight weeks of love, happiness and joy. Although it can be really hard to speak publicly, it is important to do that. I was terrified the first time that I did it and I was not even planning on doing it, but I did it with a wee bit of determination in the back of my head thinking that it might help someone else. There is still loads of stigma around the issue, so, when you can speak up, try to do it, because it helps. I hope that today's debate has given some comfort to the many families who have been going through the trauma of baby loss and who, sadly, will continue to go through it. I am very conscious that every journey is different. The circumstances and timing of every baby loss and pregnancy are different; everything about each journey is different. Hopefully, no one feels offended, due to what their circumstances were. The point is that it is all out of love for the people who have gone through baby loss. With today's motion, we are trying to bring support and comfort through the certificates. It is a huge additional pain and trauma to not have access to post-mortem services here in the North or across the island. My brain cannot imagine what a family goes through in those circumstances. First, they lose their wee baby, and then they do not have access to a post-mortem. I cannot imagine what that is like. The reinstatement of those services is separate from the Minister of Finance, but, judging from tonight's debate, it is an issue that all Members across the Chamber would like to pick up and see how we can support the Department of Health to, maybe, bring something forward. Mark said that not having the service, and the associated delays, were unacceptable, and Sinéad said that 800 families had been impacted since 2018. That really is not good enough. Following today's debate, if we can get the certificates over the line, then brilliant, but also, and this is outside Caoimhe's remit, if we could come together to try to make progress on the pathology service, it would make a massive difference to families who are going through the most unimaginable pain and trauma and are then having to travel. In the case that Linda mentioned, the family was separated from its wee baby, which is terrible. I am sorry that I did not take notes when everyone was speaking, but I was listening to you all. Kellie's remarks in which she shared her experience were so powerful. Gary's comments really hit home with me too; thank you for that. Gary. Liz and Linda shared some personal accounts, and Mark spoke about the bereavement counsellor in his constituency and all the great work that she does. Cara also made an intervention on those bereavement services. Diane touched on that as well and spoke about the training for clinicians and the importance of the language that they use, because, as we have all said, it does not get any more emotive or personal than this. Therefore, if we can do any good from today's motion, let us do it. Thanks very much.

913 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 (0.65).
  • 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 politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.65Yes
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 issues0.80
No identity-related subject0.19
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.01
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