Member's statement: Mark's Law
Member's statement by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Mark's Law
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5404085
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have come to the Chamber today to raise a deep concern that was brought to my attention by one of my North Down constituents, Rachel McCullough, about allergen identification in hospital settings. Rachel got in touch with my office last year after the devastating passing of her father, Mark Dyer. I extend again my sincere condolences to her and her family. Loss is never easy, and that is particularly so in this case given the circumstances of Mark's death. Mark, a beloved husband, father, grandfather and friend, was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic kidney cancer in July 2024. With the right care, Mark should still have had years to live and time to spend with his family, but, instead, by the following summer, he had died in the Ulster Hospital, where he had been for months. Mark had an allergy to dexamethasone, which a medical professional first identified in 2017. That was then reiterated verbally multiple times by Mark, his wife and his family during his care. Despite that, it was never recorded on his electronic patient record, and Mark was administered multiple doses on multiple occasions, including during his final surgery. He was expected to have months after the surgery; instead, he had nine days. Serious questions must be asked about how that was allowed to happen. Mark, who was full of life, trusted the medical professionals around him to deliver the care that he needed. Rachel and her family deserve answers and the truth about her father's death. Rachel, being incredibly brave and selfless, is determined that no one else will face the devastating consequences of an allergy falling through the gaps. She is proposing Mark's law. Her modest asks are implemented in different trusts already, but a clear regional protocol could make a real difference. Those asks include the implementation of a coloured wristband system when a patient is admitted with an allergy that causes airway restriction; a review of the processes for recording allergies in patient records, because, despite the fact that electronic records are meant to prompt regularly to record allergens, evidence shows that that did not happen in Mark's case; and, finally, an upgrade of staff training to remove any systemic vulnerability in allergen visibility across the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust in particular. Those are asks of the Health Minister and the trusts.
At the end of the day, Mark was a man who should have had more time, and, sadly, we do not yet know whether the same thing has happened to somebody else. It is tragic, and we must all take steps to ensure that it does not happen to any other person or family ever again.
449 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.79 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.17 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:01 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.