Debate contribution: Paediatric Pathology Services
Debate contribution by Miss Órlaithí Flynn on .
- MLA
- Miss Órlaithí Flynn
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 13 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Paediatric Pathology Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5316331
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Members have touched on all the key points and the motivation for bringing the motion to the House. Diane Dodds made a point that I want to repeat. When we talk about all-island cooperation and collaboration, at times, people make assessments and judgements that the discussions are political, but that is not what this is about. I hope that everyone recognises that, regardless of which party tabled the motion, the motivation at its heart is to try to take away the absolutely dreadful decision-making process that families have had to go through for the past seven years. Alan and Colin very eloquently said that we are talking about the most unimaginable pain. Families are going through this situation daily. As a mother, I cannot even imagine the grief of losing a child. On top of that loss, families are having to make a decision about putting their child on a boat or an aeroplane to go across the water for a post-mortem. It is hard to put yourself into the shoes of the families who have had to go through that process. I acknowledge that the Health Minister referenced the issue in the Chamber a number of months ago. As the Minister and his predecessor will know, we have raised the issue at the Health Committee over the past number of years. We welcome the ongoing discussions to try to find a solution that will keep the service on the island. It is my understanding — the Minister can correct me if I am wrong — that we had moved closer to a position where he could make a decision and movement was imminent but that that has changed. His latest update to the Assembly Chamber was that, regrettably, the South is now facing its own capacity issues, with two out of three of its paediatric pathologists due to retire soon. We do not have any paediatric pathologists. The South is facing its own shortage and difficulties, and we have heard about how widespread that situation is in Britain and possibly globally.
It is really important to make the point that we need to have any conversations or explore any options that we can with the South for the sake of every citizen living across the island. I do not know how achievable that is, but no one wants to be in the position of putting a baby or child on a boat or a plane for a post-mortem. Therefore, trying to find an all-island, localised solution would benefit the South as much as us. That might not happen in the short term or even in the medium term. Looking at such specialities will probably require a broader discussion about workforce and training on the island. That is probably being done, but, if it is not, it needs to be, so that, at least, we can give reassurance and comfort to families who have already gone through that terrible situation that we are trying to change it. My colleague Philip McGuigan, who is Chair of the Health Committee, mentioned the other good examples of children's heart surgery and the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin. It is important for the public to realise that we really care, and, if we find a solution, even around the digital stuff, let us look at it. We need to stop what is happening at the minute, because no one wants to be in that position.
572 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.74 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:18 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.