Member's statement: Gynaecological Cancer
Member's statement by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- MLA
- Ms Claire Sugden
- Party at the time
- Independent
- Date
- 23 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Gynaecological Cancer
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5129127
Read the official Assembly record
Text
September is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month and is an important opportunity to raise awareness of ovarian, womb, cervical, vulva and vaginal cancers. Those cancers affect thousands of women across the UK and Northern Ireland, yet awareness, detection and outcomes remain poor. In recent weeks, I have received correspondence from constituents and charities raising a specific and concerning issue: the widespread misunderstanding that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer. Nearly half of women in Northern Ireland believe that a smear test will pick up ovarian cancer: that is not true. Cervical cancer screening detects changes in the cervix that could lead to cervical cancer, but it does not test for ovarian cancer or other gynaecological cancers. That misunderstanding is costing women time and giving them false reassurance, and, when it comes to ovarian cancer, time is everything. Ovarian cancer is often called the "silent killer", because its symptoms are vague and easy to dismiss: bloating, pelvic pain, feeling full quickly and changes in bladder habits, which, to be honest, are an everyday event for women. We are told that those symptoms can be put down to hormones, stress or simply being a woman. Too often, referrals come too late.
Only one in three women here knows that bloating is a symptom of ovarian cancer.
The five-year survival rate, overall, remains below 45% across the UK. For woman diagnosed at stage 1, survival can be as high as 95%, but for those diagnosed at stage 4, it drops down to 15%. That difference is stark when we consider the consequences of a late diagnosis. Those outcomes are among the worst in Europe, and that is not acceptable. However, it does not have to be inevitable. Other parts of the United Kingdom are beginning to act. For example, in England, cervical screening information states in clear wording that the test does not detect ovarian cancer. Public awareness campaigns have helped to challenge myths and encourage women to see their GP if they notice symptoms. Northern Ireland needs to do the same. I urge the Public Health Agency to take immediate steps to run a public information campaign here, using plain language, community channels, GP surgeries and the local media. Women need to know what cervical screening is and is not for. Awareness is not enough, however. We need better pathways for diagnosis. Finally, we need a women's health strategy in Northern Ireland, because, across these islands, women's health has been an afterthought for too long. Pain is normalised, and symptoms are dismissed, resulting in poor outcomes for women in areas ranging from endometriosis to fertility, from menopause to cancer. Behind every statistic is a woman — a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend. Some are lucky to still be with us, but others are not, because diagnosis happened too late. Their voices should not be ignored.
474 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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.51 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.47 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:10 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.