Debate contribution: Women’s Health Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Women’s Health Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5449113
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for tabling the motion, and I welcome her back here and wish her well. Obviously, I wholeheartedly support the motion, and I do so as someone who represents a constituency where the consequences of a broken, underfunded health system are hardest felt. It is a shame that the Health Minister is not here today. I understand that he is sitting with that enemy of women Donald Trump, but he should be here listening to the debate and acting today.
Yesterday, I posted on social media an answer from the Health Minister to a question that I had asked about the number of women in my West Belfast constituency who are receiving treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Apparently, the Belfast Trust does not hold even that very basic information. It is said that you count what matters, so, clearly — disgracefully — women in that situation do not count. In the past 24 hours, I have been inundated with comments, messages and emails from women in my constituency and beyond about the issue. Medical misogyny is deep, but I was genuinely taken aback by the scale of the number of people reaching out and getting in touch. I want to raise some of the issues that people raised with me. One woman, who waited years on a PCOS diagnosis, finally received a telephone appointment only to be told to get back in touch if she wanted to get pregnant. Nobody has followed up with her since — and that was almost five years ago. Another woman reports being bedridden for days on end due to endometriosis. Her community-based pain management group is a lifeline for her, and she said that she would not be here without it. Another woman waited 12 years for an endometriosis diagnosis, and — it is quite shocking even to say this, but it is what I was told — she still takes her husband with her to appointments because she wants to be taken seriously. She is not taken seriously by her medical practitioner. That is a disgraceful, Victorian-era attitude towards women. Someone else said that she suffered with endometriosis all her life and was told that the pain was all in her head, something that, unfortunately, people are told regularly. It was not until she had a hysterectomy for cancer that her diagnosis was confirmed. Some women who were lucky enough to get a diagnosis report being left to deal with it, as the Member for North Belfast alluded to. With no help and no information, multiple women who live with serious, life-changing conditions such as PCOS reported that their pain was routinely dismissed. They were told, "Everything will settle down as you get older", which is patronising as well as dismissive. Someone else reported waiting two years for gynaecology surgery, only for all her symptoms to return and for her to go to the back of the queue and have to spend another two or three years on a waiting list. Others talked about a lack of data on the number of women being diagnosed with ADHD and autism. Another woman shared her traumatic experience of misdiagnosis of a mental health condition and the wide-reaching impacts that that has had on her family life. When you take all that together, it is abundantly clear that working-class women in particular, and women juggling caring responsibilities and navigating poverty, are not getting the healthcare that they deserve. That is the predictable outcome of a capitalist, profit-driven model that has always treated women's health as a secondary concern at best. Let us call it another name and what it is: medical misogyny. For generations, women's pain has been dismissed, their symptoms minimised and their conditions under-researched, as Members have said. As has been said already, it is a disgrace that endometriosis patients are waiting 10 years for a diagnosis. Gynaecology waiting lists in Northern Ireland are among the longest in these islands. The Getting It Right First Time review confirmed what women already knew and have been saying for years: the system is not working for them. This is the logical end point of a system that was never designed with women, and certainly not working-class and poor women, at its centre. While we debate strategies and action plans, the privatisation of women's healthcare quietly accelerates. When public waiting lists become intolerable, those who can afford it or who can get themselves into debt go private. Those who cannot, including thousands of women in West Belfast whom I represent, are left behind. England, Scotland, Wales and the South of Ireland all have dedicated women's health strategies, and the North does not. That is a political choice, and, once again, the North is a laggard. The Minister previously stated that he wants to deliver action, not another vague strategy of platitudes. To that end, he promised to produce a women's health action plan, but, as the motion rightly states, there is no:
"publicly reported progress, outcomes or ... targets"
in respect of the so-called action plan. At the end of last year, the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) produced research that clearly identified what women actually need: accessibility, especially to GPs; continuity of care in order to build strong relationships with healthcare providers; and —
— women's health hubs. I support the motion and commend the Member who tabled it.
900 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: 0.13 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.70).
- 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 | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.70 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.19 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.76 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.24 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 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.