Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-112"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070423.17.1-112"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@cs1
"Hr. formand! Denne forordning om lægemidler fremstillet ud fra manipuleret væv er både nødvendig og uundgåelig i en tid præget af hurtige bioteknologiske fremskridt. Sådanne fremskridt åbner muligheder for behandling af hidtil uhelbredelige sygdomme. Som vi har set mange gange før, er en af de største hindringer for medicinske fremskridt imidlertid ikke videnskabelige begrænsninger, men pseudoetiske dogmer grundet i religiøse misforståelser omkring, hvad Gud ønsker for os. Denne manglende forståelse har desværre ikke ændret sig meget siden forståelsen for den psykiske verden i den mørke middelalder. Vi har derfor under disse lovgivningsforhandlinger igen været vidne til ophedede diskussioner om etiske spørgsmål, og der er blevet stillet krav om forbud mod alt, der har at gøre med fosterstamceller, hybrider eller kimærer og betaling for humant væv. Hvad er der i etisk henseende galt med at indføre humant genetisk materiale i et dyrs ovarie med henblik på at fremstille et bestemt humant kemisk stof og redde en persons liv? Hvad er der i etisk henseende galt med at udtage unikt humant væv fra en donor mod betaling og anvende dette til behandling af et barn, der lider af kræft? Hvad er egentlig mindst etisk korrekt: at anvende embryonale stamceller eller hybrider og kimærer og at tillade betaling eller at lade et barn dø?"@da2
"Herr Präsident! Eine Verordnung über aus Gewebe gezüchteten Produkten ist im heutigen Zeitalter rasanter biotechnologischer Fortschritte sowohl notwendig als auch unvermeidlich. Solche Fortschritte eröffnen Möglichkeiten für die Heilung bislang unheilbarer Krankheiten. Doch wie es bereits vielfach in der Vergangenheit der Fall war, sind nicht wissenschaftliche Grenzen ein Haupthindernis für den medizinischen Fortschritt, sondern pseudo-ethische Dogmen, die auf religiöse Missverständnisse dessen zurückgehen, was Gott tatsächlich für die Menschheit wünscht. Leider haben sich solche falschen Auffassungen seit dem Mittelalter und der damaligen Sichtweise auf die physische Welt kaum verändert. So gab es in den Diskussionen über diesen Rechtsakt wieder einmal hitzige ethische Auseinandersetzungen und die Forderung nach einem Verbot von allem, was mit menschlichen embryonalen Stammzellen, Hybrid-Chimären und der Bezahlung von menschlichem Gewebe zu tun hat. Ich frage Sie, Kolleginnen und Kollegen, was ist ethisch falsch daran, wenn eine tierische Eizelle benutzt wird, um menschliches genetisches Material darin einzuführen, um einen bestimmten chemischen Stoff für den Menschen zu produzieren und jemandem das Leben zu retten? Was ist ethisch falsch daran, wenn ein bestimmtes menschliches Gewebe gegen Bezahlung von einem Spender genommen wird, um es für die Behandlung der Krebserkrankung eines Kindes zu nutzen? Was ist denn am Ende weniger ethisch: embryonale Stammzellen oder Hybrid-Chimären zu verwenden und das gegen Bezahlung zu tun oder ein Kind sterben zu lassen?"@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κανονιστική ρύθμιση των προϊόντων μηχανικής ιστών δεν αποτελεί απλώς αναγκαιότητα, αλλά είναι και αναπόφευκτη στην παρούσα εποχή των ραγδαίων βιοτεχνολογικών εξελίξεων. Αυτές οι εξελίξεις προσφέρουν δυνατότητες θεραπείας για μέχρι στιγμής ανίατες ασθένειες. Όπως, όμως, σε πολλές περιπτώσεις στο παρελθόν, ένα από τα κύρια εμπόδια στην ιατρική πρόοδο δεν είναι οι επιστημονικοί περιορισμοί αλλά ψευτοηθικές δοξασίες που οφείλονται σε θρησκευτικές παρερμηνείες των πραγματικών επιθυμιών του Θεού για την ανθρωπότητα. Τέτοιες παρανοήσεις έχουν δυστυχώς αλλάξει πολύ λίγο από την αντίληψη του σκοτεινού μεσαίωνα περί του φυσικού κόσμου. Συνεπώς, σε αυτές τις νομοθετικές συζητήσεις, ακούσαμε πάλι εξημμένες ηθικές διαφωνίες και εκκλήσεις να απαγορευθεί οτιδήποτε έχει σχέση με ανθρώπινα εμβρυϊκά βλαστοκύτταρα, υβριδικές χίμαιρες και την πληρωμή για ανθρώπινους ιστούς. Σας ερωτώ, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, ποιο είναι το πρόβλημα ηθικής όσον αφορά τη χρησιμοποίηση ενός ζωικού ωαρίου στο οποίο εισάγεται ανθρώπινο γενετικό υλικό για την παραγωγή μιας συγκεκριμένης ανθρώπινης χημικής ουσίας και τη σωτηρία της ζωής κάποιου; Ποιο είναι το ηθικό πρόβλημα όσον αφορά την εξασφάλιση έναντι πληρωμής ενός μοναδικού ανθρώπινου ιστού από έναν δότη, προκειμένου να χρησιμοποιηθεί για τη θεραπεία ενός παιδικού καρκίνου; Σε τελική ανάλυση, τι είναι λιγότερο ηθικό: να χρησιμοποιούνται εμβρυϊκά βλαστοκύτταρα ή υβριδικές χίμαιρες και να επιτρέπεται η πληρωμή ή να εγκαταλείπεται ένα παιδί να πεθάνει;"@el10
"Señor Presidente, la regulación de los productos de ingeniería tisular es tanto una necesidad como algo inevitable en la época actual de avances biotecnológicos. Estos avances ofrecen una cura potencial de enfermedades hasta ahora incurables. Sin embargo, como en muchas ocasiones en el pasado, uno de los principales obstáculos al progreso médico no son las limitaciones científicas, sino el dogma seudoético nacido de la malinterpretación religiosa de los verdaderos deseos de Dios para la humanidad. Lamentablemente, esas falsas nociones han cambiado muy poco desde la visión del mundo físico que se tenía en la Edad de las tinieblas. Por tanto, en los debates legislativos hemos vuelto a oír acalorados desacuerdos éticos y llamamientos en favor de la prohibición de todo lo que tenga que ver con las células madre embrionarias, quimeras híbridas y el pago por tejidos humanos. Estimados colegas, me gustaría preguntarles qué hay de malo, desde el punto de vista ético, en utilizar un ovario animal en el que se inserta material genético humano a fin de producir una determinada sustancia química y salvar la vida de alguien. ¿Qué hay de malo desde el punto de vista ético en obtener un tejido humano único de un donante a cambio de una remuneración a fin de utilizarlo para tratar el cáncer de un niño? Después de todo, ¿qué es menos ético: utilizar células madre embrionarias o quimeras híbridas y permitir el pago o dejar morir a un niño?"@es21
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, kudosteknologiatuotteita koskeva asetus on sekä tarpeellinen että välttämätön nykyisellä bioteknologian nopean kehityksen aikakaudella. Tämä kehitys tuo mukanaan potentiaalisia hoitoja sairauksiin, joita ei ole aiemmin voitu hoitaa. Kuten usein aiemminkin, suurimpia esteitä lääketieteen kehityksessä eivät ole tieteelliset rajoitteet vaan muka eettiset dogmit, joita syntyy, kun uskontoon vedoten ymmärretään väärin se, mitä Jumala todella toivoo ihmiskunnalta. Nämä harhakäsitykset ovat ikävä kyllä muuttuneet hyvin vähän siitä, miten pimeällä keskiajalla fyysinen maailma ymmärrettiin. Olemme näiden lainsäädäntökeskustelujen aikana saaneet näin ollen jälleen todistaa kiihkeitä eettisiä kiistoja ja kuulla vaatimuksia siitä, että kaikki, mikä liittyy ihmisalkioiden kantasoluihin, hybridikimairoihin ja ihmiskudosten luovuttamiseen maksua vastaan, olisi kiellettävä. Hyvät kollegat, kysyn teiltä, mikä on eettisesti väärin siinä, että eläinten munasarjoja käytetään siihen, että niihin istutetaan ihmisten perintöainesta tiettyjen ihmisperäisten kemikaalien tuottamiseksi ja ihmishengen pelastamiseksi? Mikä on eettisesti väärin siinä, että ainutlaatuista ihmiskudosta otetaan luovuttajalta maksua vastaan, jotta tätä kudosta voidaan käyttää lapsen syövän hoitamisessa? Mikä on loppujen lopuksi vähemmän eettistä: se, että käytämme alkioiden kantasoluja tai hybridikimairoja ja sallimme luovuttamisen maksua vastaan, vai se, että annamme lapsen kuolla?"@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, règlementer les produits de l’ingénierie tissulaire est à la fois nécessaire et inévitable en cette époque d’avancées biotechnologiques rapides. Ces progrès offrent un traitement potentiel pour des maladies jusqu’ici incurables. Mais, comme c’est arrivé souvent dans le passé, l’un des principaux obstacles au progrès médical n’est pas les limites de la science, mais le dogme pseudo éthique né de malentendus religieux sur les réelles volontés de Dieu concernant l’humanité. Ces conceptions erronées ont malheureusement très peu changé depuis l’interprétation moyen-âgeuse du monde physique. En conséquence, au cours de ces discussions législatives, nous avons à nouveau entendu des protestations éthiques enflammées et des appels à l’interdiction de tout ce qui touche aux cellules souches embryonnaires humaines, aux chimères hybrides et au paiement pour des tissus humains. Dites-moi, chers collègues, ce qu’il y a de contraire à l’éthique dans le fait d’utiliser un ovaire animal dans lequel on insère du matériel génétique humain pour produire une certaine substance chimique humaine et sauver ainsi une vie humaine? Qu’y a-t-il de contraire à l’éthique dans le fait d’obtenir un tissu humain unique auprès d’un donneur en échange d’un paiement et de l’utiliser pour traiter un enfant atteint d’un cancer? Après tout, qu’est-ce qui est moins éthique: utiliser des cellules souches embryonnaires ou des chimères hybrides et autoriser leur paiement, ou laisser mourir un enfant?"@fr8
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@hu11
"Signor Presidente, una normativa sui prodotti dell’ingegneria tissutale è tanto necessaria quanto ineludibile in quest’epoca di rapidi progressi biotecnologici. Tali progressi offrono una potenziale cura per malattie sinora incurabili. Tuttavia, come è spesso accaduto in passato, uno dei principali ostacoli al progresso medico non è costituito da limiti di ordine scientifico, ma da dogmi pseudoetici scaturiti da equivoci religiosi circa i veri disegni di Dio per il genere umano. Siffatti giudizi erronei purtroppo sono cambiati molto poco dal concetto del mondo fisico dei tempi bui del medioevo. Di conseguenza, in questi dibattiti legislativi abbiamo nuovamente assistito ad incandescenti dissensi etici e ad appelli accorati tesi a vietare qualsiasi cosa abbia una qualche attinenza con le cellule staminali embrionali umane, chimere ibride e acquisto di tessuti umani. Vi chiedo, onorevoli colleghi, cosa vi sia di eticamente sbagliato nell’usare un’ovaia animale in cui viene inserito del materiale genetico umano per produrre una determinata sostanza chimica umana e salvare quindi la vita a qualcuno? Che cosa c’è di eticamente sbagliato nel reperire un tessuto umano unico da un donatore dietro un corrispettivo economico al fine di usarlo nel trattamento di neoplasie infantili? Dopo tutto, che cosa è meno etico: usare le cellule staminali embrionali o le chimere ibride e consentirne l’acquisto, o lasciar morire un bambino?"@it12
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@lt14
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@lv13
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, de verordening betreffende weefselmanipulatieproducten is zowel noodzakelijk als onvermijdelijk in het huidige tijdperk van snelle biotechnische vooruitgang. Deze vooruitgang biedt mogelijk genezing voor tot nu toe ongeneeslijke ziekten. Maar evenals bij vele eerdere gelegenheden, zijn het niet de wetenschappelijke beperkingen die een van de belangrijkste obstakels voor medische vooruitgang vormen, maar pseudo-ethische dogma’s die voortkomen uit religieus onbegrip over wat God werkelijk met de mensheid voor heeft. Wat dergelijke misvattingen betreft, is er ten opzichte van de duistere middeleeuwen en het begrip van de fysieke wereld in die tijd helaas heel weinig veranderd. Bijgevolg zijn we in verband met deze wetgeving weer getuige geweest van verhitte discussies over ethische tegenstellingen en een roep om het verbieden van alles wat maar te maken heeft met menselijke embryonale stamcellen, hybride chimaeren en het betalen voor menselijk weefsel. Collega’s, ik vraag u wat er ethisch verkeerd is aan het gebruik van dierlijke eierstokken waaraan menselijk genetisch materiaal is toegevoegd om een bepaalde menselijke stof te produceren waarmee iemands leven kan worden gered? Wat is er ethisch verkeerd aan dat een uniek menselijk weefsel tegen betaling van een donor wordt verkregen om het te gebruiken bij de behandeling van kanker bij een kind? Wat is uiteindelijk minder ethisch: gebruik maken van embryonale stamcellen of hybride chimaeren en betaling toestaan, of een kind laten sterven?"@nl3
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, a regulação dos produtos de engenharia de tecidos é, simultaneamente, uma necessidade e uma inevitabilidade na era presente, de grandes avanços na área das biotecnologias. Esses avanços abrem perspectivas de uma potencial cura de doenças até aqui incuráveis. Mas, como sucedeu muitas vezes no passado, um dos principais obstáculos ao progresso da medicina reside não nas limitações científicas, mas em dogmas pseudo-éticos decorrentes de interpretações religiosas erróneas dos verdadeiros desígnios de Deus para a humanidade. Essas concepções erradas, desafortunadamente, mudaram muito pouco desde o apogeu da visão medieval do mundo físico. Assim, nestes debates legislativos, voltámos a escutar acaloradas manifestações de desacordo e apelos à proibição de tudo o que se prenda com células estaminais embrionárias humanas, quimeras ou híbridos e pagamento de tecidos humanos. Pergunto aos colegas onde está o problema ético de utilizar um ovário de origem animal em que foi introduzido material genético humano para produzir uma determinada substância química própria do organismo humano e salvar a vida de uma pessoa? Onde está o problema ético de colher um tecido humano único de um dador contra pagamento para o utilizar no tratamento de uma criança cancerosa? Afinal, o que é menos ético: usar células estaminais embrionárias ou quimeras ou híbridos e permitir o pagamento ou deixar morrer uma criança?"@pt17
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@ro18
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@sk19
"Mr President, the regulation of tissue engineering products is both a necessity and an inevitability in the present era of rapid biotechnological advances. Such advances offer a potential cure for hitherto incurable diseases. But, as on many occasions in the past, one of the main obstacles to medical progress is not scientific limitations, but pseudo-ethical dogma born out of religious misunderstandings of God’s real wishes for mankind. Such misconceptions have sadly changed very little since the Dark Ages’ comprehension of the physical world. Accordingly, in these legislative discussions, we have again heard heated ethical disagreements and calls for the prohibition of anything to do with human embryonic stem cells, hybrid chimeras and payment for human tissue. I ask you, colleagues, what is ethically wrong in using an animal ovary into which human genetic material is inserted in order to produce a certain human chemical and save someone’s life? What is ethically wrong with a unique human tissue being obtained from a donor in return for payment in order to use it in the treatment of a child’s cancer? After all, what is less ethical: to use embryonic stem cells or hybrid chimeras and to allow payment, or to let a child to die?"@sl20
"Herr talman! Förordningen om vävnadstekniska produkter är både nödvändig och oundviklig i denna tid av snabba biotekniska framsteg. Dessa framsteg erbjuder ett potentiellt botemedel för hittills obotliga sjukdomar. Men som vid många tillfällen under historiens gång är ett av de största hindren för medicinska framsteg inte vetenskapliga begränsningar utan kvasietiska dogmer till följd av religiösa missförstånd av Guds verkliga önskan för mänskligheten. Detta slags missförstånd har sorgligt nog inte ändrats mycket sedan medeltidens uppfattning av den fysiska världen. Således har vi i dessa lagstiftningsdiskussioner återigen hört hetsiga etiska meningsskiljaktigheter och uppmaningar till förbud mot allt som har att göra med mänskliga embryonala stamceller, hybrider eller chimärer och betalning för mänsklig vävnad. Jag frågar er, kolleger, vad är etiskt fel med att använda en äggstock från ett djur och föra in genetiskt material från en människa för att framställa en viss mänsklig kemisk sammansättning och rädda livet på någon? Vad är etiskt fel med att få unik mänsklig vävnad från en donator mot betalning och använda den för att behandla ett cancersjukt barn? Vad är minst etiskt: att använda embryonala stamceller eller hybrider eller chimärer och att tillåta betalning eller att låta ett barn dö?"@sv22
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Marios Matsakis (ALDE ). –"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Czech.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Danish.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Dutch.ttl.gz
4http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
5http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Estonian.ttl.gz
6http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
7http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Finnish.ttl.gz
8http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/French.ttl.gz
9http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/German.ttl.gz
10http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Greek.ttl.gz
11http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Hungarian.ttl.gz
12http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Italian.ttl.gz
13http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Latvian.ttl.gz
14http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Lithuanian.ttl.gz
15http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Maltese.ttl.gz
16http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Polish.ttl.gz
17http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Portuguese.ttl.gz
18http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Romanian.ttl.gz
19http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovak.ttl.gz
20http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovenian.ttl.gz
21http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Spanish.ttl.gz
22http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Swedish.ttl.gz
23http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph