Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.5.2-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Nisticò, for his cooperation throughout the process of putting this report together. I would like to add to Mr Lund’s comments that what I find unacceptable is the fact that a compromise discussed between two groups, without the participation of the shadow rapporteurs, at least, of the other, so-called smaller groups, is being presented as a parliamentary compromise.
Having said that, the liberal group, which I am representing here, considers that the common position adopted by the Council is an excellent compromise. It takes equal account of the concerns expressed by blood donors, in particular with regard to ethical requirements in the field of donations, and by patients, who are demanding that products derived from plasma be available as needed throughout Europe, as has been amply illustrated by Mr Bowis. In other words, any amendment whose effect might be to threaten this balance would appear to be dangerous, and I would add, in particular, that we believe fighting over the obligation for donations to be entirely without remuneration is a mistake, as making voluntary donations the sole method means favouring one national collection system over another, which would be completely counter to the Treaties. Why must we be forced to choose between the German mixed system, for example, the monopoly of the Red Cross in Belgium, or even the French system, which, since the tragic contaminated blood affair, has set up an effective blood monitoring system which many Member States now use as a model? That is not the key issue. The most important thing, and we would stress this, is to promote the highest possible quality and safety standards for donations of blood and blood components, and it is not by extolling the virtues of obligatorily entirely unpaid donations, I repeat, or by proposing assimilation – thus far scientifically unfounded on grounds of both ethics and quality, as stated by Amendments Nos 7 and 10 adopted in committee and Amendment No 26 – that we will be laying down proper foundations for the future of the blood sector in Europe and providing a practical, sustainable solution to the question of self-sufficiency. The liberal group will therefore vote against these amendments. Yes, of course you must listen to voluntary blood donors. Of course their contribution is priceless. But you must also listen to patients when they tell you that no one with haemophilia or primary immune deficiency will inject plasma products that are untreated or of uncertain quality just because they come from voluntary donors. The message we must send here and now to donors and recipients is one of generosity and solidarity. We believe it is unproductive to set their points of view against each other. The main threat to the blood sector and the lives of patients lies in the lack of medicinal products derived from plasma. It is in accepting this reality and accepting all healthy donors without excluding anybody that the battle for self-sufficiency will one day be won in Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples