Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-372"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.7.3-372"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, in my turn, to thank the rapporteur, Mr Liese, for his excellent work on information and analysis, in cooperation with all his colleagues, but also with experts at a very high level. Cell therapy and tissue grafting are areas which offer the hope of treating incurable diseases which leave so many people in pain and anxiety. However, mastery of this technique alone is not enough to respond to the expectations of sick people. That is why we need this proposed directive, the objective of which is to ensure that there is a framework of safety and quality standards for human tissues and cells.
As far as voluntary non-remunerative donation and donor anonymity are concerned, the directive cannot impose obligations on Member States by virtue of the European Treaty, but can only make recommendations. Donation must be non-remunerative. How could anyone ever imagine trading in human products? The saving of a life is a disinterested action, taken with no reward in mind. Donation should also be voluntary, and therefore requires obligatory informed and written consent by the living donor. This is why it is essential to inform society about the advisability of these treatments and about the responsibilities of each of us, in a spirit of solidarity, because the health of thousands of human beings can be improved in this way.
The people of our countries are not sufficiently aware of the benefits of human tissue and cell donations. How many lives have been saved, how many patients treated, by bone-marrow grafts? The directive should be accompanied by much more detailed information. This information should be more reliable and should be based on authentic scientific research. For example, how many times have we been told that embryonic stem cells would treat incurable diseases, whereas so far nothing has been published to prove this? It would be wrong to say that prohibiting the use of embryonic cells would prevent lives from being saved. There are other alternatives, in particular techniques involving adult stem cells. Moreover, this observation makes us wonder just which cells are covered by the proposed directive.
I shall be supporting the position of the French Government on three points. Under Article 152(4) of the Treaty, it is not our task to regulate the use of cells of any particular type, such as germ cells or embryonic cells, by means of this directive. That falls within the jurisdiction of national governments, as do ethical issues involving embryos. Finally, gametes are not included within the scope of the directive. I shall be voting in favour of this report, but I shall continue to pay great attention to the issue of respect for the dignity of both the donor and the recipient."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples