Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-368"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.7.3-368"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Liese, ladies and gentlemen, we are familiar with the development of treatments based on the use of tissues and cells of human origin. There are hundreds of thousands of such treatments every year. It was therefore a matter of urgency that the Commission should propose a draft directive seeking to draw up new quality and safety standards in order to increase public confidence in the use of such tissues and cells in and on the human body. I therefore approve the Commission’s action without reservation, and I support it.
Unfortunately, as someone has already said this evening, there are too many amendments, leading in every direction, and this threatens to change the nature of the initial draft, thereby depriving us of regulations which are, however, urgently needed. This is why this evening, in this debate, on behalf of the GUE/NGL, I should like to remind the House of the three fundamental principles which lead me to oppose many of these amendments. The first principle is that we must not take advantage of a draft directive, the need for which nobody would deny, in order to broaden its scope so as to include sectors which will have to have special regulations, or which have such regulations already. Above all, we must not use this draft as a means of opening debates about stem cells, embryonic cells and supernumerary cells, about research into these subjects, or even about voluntary termination of pregnancy. Many amendments contain these objectives, camouflaged, to a greater or lesser extent, by good intentions, and for that reason we shall not be voting in favour of them.
The second principle is that research and science should be enclosed by ethical rules in order to avoid irresponsible actions which are dangerous to the human species, but they must not be prevented by religious prohibitions, from whatever quarter. This is a basic rule of secularity. It is a necessary condition in order to guarantee progress. Here again, there is no shortage of amendments which should be rejected in the name of this principle.
The third principle is that the human body should not be available for sale, for purchase or for theft. On this point at least we must all be agreed, and we must also be agreed on the fact that this principle implies, firstly, a real and explicit willingness on the part of the donor and, secondly, explicit protection of the anonymity of the donor and of the recipient. Any exception would be a source of all kinds of abuses and excesses. However, that does not prevent traceability, which guarantees that the quality of transplants can be controlled. Thirdly, the fact that donations should be given without remuneration should not even be a matter for discussion: human bodies are not commercial goods.
In conclusion, I repeat that the development of these therapeutic treatments is such that a European directive is essential. However, this development also makes it essential, at the same time, for the European Parliament, in other words for us, to show rigour and respect for the great principles which very many of us have in common and which we cannot allow to be called into question, even insidiously."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples