Debate contribution: The draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4589618
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise very briefly to give my support to this move. It appears to us that the UK-wide changes are common sense and that extending the range of professionals and services that can offer take-home naloxone to those at risk of an overdose should be widely supported. The ability for people to save lives, with the extended use and the extended provision of those who can use and administer naloxone, is something that we should all support. Today, we acknowledge the lives that have been lost to overdose and remember that each one is a person with a family and a life that has been lost to drugs. That is deeply regrettable. Approving this measure will help the situation, but we should never forget the people who have lost their lives to drugs and the families that have been left impacted. I simply want to say, Minister, that we support this, and I hope that you manage to enact it.
160 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: 0.02 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.83 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:13 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.